========================
Copyright Does Not Exist
========================

COPYRIGHT DOES NOT EXIST

By Linus Walleij

Translated from Swedish to English by Nirgendwo.

Preface
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Hackers!
Chapter 3 - Grass Roots
Chapter 4 - Underground Hackers
Chapter 5 - Subculture of the Subcultures
Chapter 6 - The Bleep Culture
Chapter 7 - Rave, Techno, and Acid
Chapter 8 - Cyberpunk
Chapter 9 - An Electronic Interest Group
Chapter 10 - Computer Crime
Chapter 11 - Artificial Intelligence
Chapter 12 - Virtual Reality
Chapter 13 - Technocracy
Chapter 14 - Female Hackers
Chapter 15 - Cybernetic Society
Chapter 16 - The Future
Chapter 17 - A Cybernetic Utopia
Appendix - White Knight vs. Otto Sync

-------
PREFACE
-------

I'm going to start by telling you what it cost me to create this book: lots.
Lots of time, and in actuality, lots of money. I'm not complaining. I've had
plenty of both. A large part of the book was written during a phase of my
studies at a vocational college. It's therefore more or less financed by the
public means in the form of student financial aid that I received at the time.
In a way, you could propose that due to this fact the book belongs to society.
The question is whether society wants to have it.

When you publish a book in a conventional manner, i. e. through a publisher,
there is always some kind of quality control. People with many years of
experience in the field read the material and ascertain that the content is
both well formulated and well motivated. The problem is that they also make
sure that the content is, as we say, "politically correct", i. e. that no one
will take inordinate offense at it. If a publisher releases obviously
inappropriate books, it will suffer from badwill. This is why obviously
well-written and even more obviously /portentous/ books such as /Mein Kampf/
are printed and distributed by smaller publishers that don't have to worry so
much about their reputation.

I don't know if any publisher wants to release this book in print, but I leave
this as a possibility. If I haven't received an offer within a year or so,
I'll release this book under public domain, which means that it will always be
free of copyright. Until then, the following applies to this material:

1: It will be absolutely free in electronic form. It may be copied and
distributed through media such as diskettes, CD-ROMs, through BBSs and the
Internet, and through public and private organizations without any prior
permission from me. I would, however, be grateful for receiving a reference
copy in case the book would be mass distributed. These terms will not be
altered if a publisher prints the book. I do not intend to commit to a
contract with anyone who wants the electronic rights to its content.

2. At the moment it is not permissible to mass-distribute the book in printed
form without my prior permission. If you want to print a large run of this
book I'm sure I wont have a problem with it, but I'm afraid I need to retain
control over this process.

Now that you've read this far, you probably realize that I give you free reign
in general terms. The distribution of this book is your responsibility too,
and the sound of its message is already ringing in your ear. Put it on disks
and give it to your friends. Put it on CDs and distribute it with magazines.
Print it out on paper if you want to.

With the exception of electronic and personal use, this work is currently (and
ironically) copyright-protected. In an earlier version of this preface I came
down on the entire capitalist system, and elaborated on how much I hated
attempts to treat information as property. I've now settled down a little and
realized that if my thoughts are going to have a chance to reach ordinary
people through an established publisher, I must be able to give that publisher
some competitive advantages.(1) I'm not a utopianist; therefore, I have to
make compromises. (And I'll be damned if I'll lose any sleep over it?)

Finally, I will issue the warning that my own values and opinions heavily
influence this book. I'm a declared individualist, and I don't mind being
called a socialist. At the intersection of these two values there is a
little-known ideology called syndicalism or Kropotkin anarchism. Basically, I
consider all private property to be equivalent to theft(2), but I'm not so
bloody stupid that I don't realize that a society without private property is
a utopia. My opinions on freedom of speech and of the press are similar to
those of the most liberal organizations in Sweden. I have nothing against
small and medium-sized companies, but to me, enormous intercontinental
corporations are more dangerous factions of power than democratic governments,
and as such, corporations must be subject to the same oversight as that for
governmental organizations.

I'm now going to tell you about the culture that made me what I am.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I have now realized that compromises are worthless in this context.

2. Private material property is theft. "Intellectual property" is even worse,
possibly armed robbery. Censorship is rape.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

========================
COPYRIGHT DOES NOT EXIST
========================

A book about information and power
For everyone and for no one

By Linus Walleij

Translation from Swedish to English by Daniel Arnrup/Voodoo Systems

DEUS EX MACHINA
CARCERES EX NOVUM

This book is about currents of thought in literature, technology, music, film,
law and ideology. It was written after I realized that if I didn't write it,
somebody else would. It was also written because I wanted all of the nice
hackers in Sweden to be aware of, and educated about, their historical and
ideological heritage. Finally, the work has been written with an air of
popular science, to make it somewhat easier to understand (although the last
statement can probably be debated; some chapters are considerably more
difficult and technical than others).

Some questions to which you should know the answers before you start reading
this book:

Q:  Why should I read this stuff?
A:  To understand new concepts within information society, emerging youth
culture, and public debate, and also to give yourself the opportunity to form
your own opinions through confronting those of myself and others. The book is
focused on cultural phenomena in particular, since they are the strongest
indicators of the direction of a society.  Our  society, at the brink of the
information society, is called the  post-industrial  society. I will not hide
the fact that I will also attempt to make you question that society.

Q: What is a computer?
A:  A computer is an object that obeys the laws of nature, just like a human
being. Like a person, it is neither evil, boring, kind, troublesome, or
particularly intelligent. It becomes what it is made to become, just like an
individual in society. The difference between a human being and a computer is
that the computer has the opportunity to know with certainty who has created
it, and it can look like virtually anything. In 1995, most people think that a
computer looks like a square box. The computing field distinguishes between
microcomputers ,  minicomputers ,  mainframes , and  supercomputers , each
being more powerful and cool than the previous. Today, the lines that separate
one from the other are so blurry that these labels are a bit antiquated. A
microcomputer, for example, is a PC, Mac, or similar home computer. The
average person has hardly seen any of the other types.

Q:  What is a computer network?
A:  A computer network consists of two or more independent computers that have
been connected by a cable. It is customary to distinguish between LANs ( Local
Area Networks ), where computers inside the same building or at most the same
block are connected, MANs ( Metropolitan Area Networks ), which connect
computers throughout an entire city, and WANs ( Wide Area Networks ), which
connect computers across great distances. The greatest network of them all is
the Internet, which links all kinds of computers - and networks - across the
entire world. A computer network allows for the transfer of information
between different computers, may it be text, images, sounds, or anything that
can be entered into a computer. It is similar to telephones or postal
transport, but better and faster. Actually, the entire phone network is a
computer network, except it connects people instead of computers. Many WANs
such as the Internet employ the phone networks instead of laying their own
cables. Computers that hold together a computer network are almost exclusively
minicomputers or mainframes, i.e. large, refrigerator-looking boxes.

Q:  What is a BBS?
A:  BBS stands for  Bulletin Board System , which really means an electronic
bulletin or poster board. Similar to a regular bulletin board, it is necessary
to visit it frequently to see its contents. You can also put up your
own "notices" and receive replies to your submissions through other written
messages on the board. There are BBSs that are partially connected to the
Internet, and some that are stand-alone. Today, you connect to a BBS through
the use of a modem, a computer, and a telephone line. In the future, BBSs will
probably be replaced by conferencing systems (a type of giant BBS) on the
vastly more efficient Internet. Newsgroups are an example of such conferencing
systems. Users can also send private electronic mail to each other or
mass-distribute computer software through a BBS.

Q:  What is Cyberspace?
A:  Cyberspace is where the money you keep in the bank resides. It is where a
telephone conversation takes place and the space through which television
programs travel on their way to your receiver. It is an electronic reality
consisting of information, and it actually only exists because people have
agreed that it works. Physically speaking, it consists of cables, radio waves,
pulses of light and large computers with gigantic memory capacities. It is a
physical occurrence in the "real" world that we may, with an ounce of faith,
consider a universe of its own. It is a reality in which man is God and has
created all. It is something of a religion. Most people "believe" in
cyberspace, or they wouldn't use an ATM to withdraw currency. The entire
economic system of the West exists inside it. Cyberspace was born on March 10,
1876, when Alexander Greham Bell "invented" it. Without electricity, there is
no cyberspace. Our civilization is already dependent on cyberspace; if it
disappeared, the economy would collapse and the West would perish.

-------------------
Chapter 2: HACKERS!
-------------------

HACKER...  the word itself has an air of magic, and many connotations. Some
associate it with computer crime, intrusion, and espionage. Others imagine a
skinny and myopic teenager, whose acned face is constantly illuminated by the
glare of a computer screen. Many immediately think of the information officer
at work. In recent years, some have even embraced the hacker as a hero.
Personally, I see the hacker as a messenger sent by humanity to explore the
worlds of information. This mission may seem superficial and self-imposed -
perhaps even foolish - but it will make more and more sense the more you read
on.

The word originally applied to the people who spent their time crawling under
the railroad tracks at the Tech Model Railroad Club's (TMRC) facilities at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the 1950's, connecting switches
and relays with cables. This model railroad was one of the first computer-like
structures. A  hack  originally meant a prank of the kind that students and
faculty played on their school (or rivaling institutions), such as wrapping
the entire roof in tinfoil. A good hack would be very conspicuous, and also
prompt the observer to ask him- or herself:  "How in the hell did they do
that!?".  Later, the word became synonymous with a spectacular solution to a
technical problem, or an ingenious computer program, or some other generally
brilliant design. A  hacker , therefore, was someone who created and
implemented things of this kind.

A hacker, generally speaking, is a person who uses a computer for its own sake
because it's fun. An author that uses a word processor all day is not a
hacker. Neither is a graphic designer, inventory specialist, or computer
instructor. Their professions simply require them to use a computer to
simplify or improve the efficiency of some other task. However, a  programmer
that loves his or her work is a hacker. Likewise, an enthusiastic computer
technician or microcomputer designer is also a hacker. Last but definitely not
least, there are  hobby hackers , who actually constitute the largest and most
overlooked group of computer enthusiasts - probably because they don't use a
computer in a professional sense. These amateurs do not have PR directors
shouting their cause, nor do they have publishers or trade journals that print
their opinions. Some elements of the media focus on this group, but they
seldom speak for them; rather, the computer media generally focuses
on "bringing up" the amateurs to the standards and norms of the professionals.

In the following section, I will try to summarize a variety of concepts, names,
and ideas, all relating to electronic culture and especially the hacker
culture. I will also attempt the rather difficult task of classifying these
events and ideas from a historical perspective. This can be a risky venture,
considering that the time frame is short and it is the type of thing that
often generates lots of criticism. Nevertheless, I will proceed; I feel worthy
of this task because I have grown up in this culture, and I consider myself to
have a very personal relationship to it. I will even suggest that I have some
of my information generation's spirit in my blood. Furthermore, I  feel  that
it needs to be done

It is a tangled story primarily concerned with young people in the 60's, 70's,
80's, and 90's. It is a history of devotion, computer programs, authority and
ingenious scientists. The tale is about hippies, yippies, libertarians,
anarchists and classical socialists in one sordid mess, and the ideology that
was born out of this mess through a conglomerate of subcultures. We will be
thrust between order and chaos, from quiet computer rooms where the only the
soft clicking of keyboards can be heard, to high-octane decibels at
techno-rave parties in European warehouses.

Let us travel to MIT, sometime in the 60's, for it is where the story begins...

The Cradle of the Hacker Culture
--------------------------------

It was no coincidence that the hacker culture was born at MIT. This is where
the first large computer networks were created, and the faculty discovered
that some of their students were so devoted to their computer studies that the
teachers let them work independently. Among the more famous people at this
liberal faculty we find  Marvin Minsky , now a legendary scientist in the
field of artificial intelligence. Thus, the first hacker's association was
born out of a close-knit group of dedicated students. The work ethic that
formed among these early hackers resembled both that of academic study and
that of a non-profit organization.

A "Hacker Club" by itself was hardly anything new; like other student groups,
both bad and good things came of the association. However, this club became
more sectarian and devoted (read: fanatic) as it grew. The mood of the group
came to resemble that of the groupof students in the movie  Dead Poets'
Society , and the members increasingly neglected their studies in favor of the
exploration of computers and computer technology. In particular, Digital
Equipment Corporation's  PDP-1  computer turned out to be incredibly
addictive. This machine differed from the mammoth IBM machines that had been
used by universities since 1948, in that you could work  directly  with the
computer. You could see your program's execution, and you could correct errors
(debug) while the program was running. In a flash, the hackers invented a
number of new programming tricks and developed, among other things, the first
computer game  (Spacewar ) and the first joystick. The accomplishments of
these hackers became so notable that they were asked to assist in the
development of the  PDP-6  computer, which became a huge hit for Digital. The
company currently manufactures behemoths like  VAX  and  DEC  computers, and
it owes a great deal of its success to the hackers at MIT.

If these hackers had been treated like other students, they would have been
expelled when it turned out that they spent their days (and especially nights)
hacking away on the school's computers instead of studying for their finals.
That would have been the end of the story. However, by a stroke of luck, the
American Department of Defense developed an interest in MIT's resources
through ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), which paid MIT to hire
developers for a project named  MAC .  MAC stood for Multiple Access Computing
and Machine Aided Cognition; the goals of these projects were to have several
users sharing a computer, and to make it simple for users to take advantage of
the computer's resources.

At MIT, the hackers progressed to developing networks, message systems (one of
the worlds first time-sharing systems, which allowed users to share a computer
by allowing it to process the requests of one user at a time), and above all
artificial intelligence  (AI), a research area in which MIT is still a world
leader. The hackers speculated about the nature of intelligence, and could not
understand what made it so difficult to capture even the simplest operation of
intelligence within the circuits of a processor. In the late 70's, a computer
science professor by the name of  Douglas Hofstadter  released a book with
positively religious undertones called  Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden
Braid , which has served as an articulated statement of the hackers' world
view. This work is well-known among hackers, and is also considered a
masterpiece by literary experts. Unfortunately, the book is  challenging  (but
not hard to read), and it is found in the mathematics section in most
libraries, which tends to scare off many potential readers.

Hackers derived a philosophical foundation for their culture from Hofstadter,
and speculations about self-referential intelligent systems (self-referential
means "learning from mistakes", or simply: learning ) figured heavily in this
philosophy. Parallels were drawn to such varied subjects as paradoxes among
the ancient philosophers,  Bach's  mathematical play with harmonies,  Escher's
mathematically inspired etchings and drawings, and  Benoit Mandelbrot 's
theories of order within chaos (which are physically illustrated by
computer-generated chaos images, also known as  fractals ). The arguments in
the book eventually lead to an understanding of Gödel's Theorem, which proves
that every complete mathematical system, by virtue of its characteristics,
contains errors - i.e., there must exist statements that are true, but cannot
be proven inside the system.

Hofstadter's book culminates in an argument regarding self-reference and
artificial intelligence, which is designed to describe human and machine
intelligence as a function of mathematical systems. As mentioned, MIT housed
the pioneers in artificial intelligence, and many of its hackers were
convinced (and remain convinced) of the possibility of building intelligent
machines. However, it is sufficient to establish that this early generation of
hackers were very concerned with mathematics, mathematical philosophy, and
classical natural sciences. This MIT-born philosophy, centered around
intelligent systems, became the mainstay of the hacker generation. It also
became important for hackers to display their own cultural identity. According
to  Sherry Turkle , a Harvard sociologist and the author of the book  The
Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit , the hackers that she has
interviewed prefer listening to Bach in particular, and avoid more romantic
composers such as Beethoven because of a  lack of order  in these
compositions.

That the hackers formed a tight core, with their own esthetic and philosophical
values, was also a result of their voluntary seclusion. Among all university
students, technology majors tend to keep the most to themselves, and an
overwhelming majority are male. Among technology majors, computer science
students are the most reclusive, and they are even more disproportionately
male. If you happen to be a "reject" from the beginning, it is not hard to
start re-evaluating your view of society and your environment in general. If
you also happen to be Army buddies, this process is almost inevitable. The
hackers mostly associated with each other, preferably by computer. In essence,
they formed a government-sanctioned subculture.

The original hackers at MIT were, among others,  Alan Kotok, Stewart Nelson,
Richard Greenblatt, Tom Knight,  and  Bill Gosper . They were known to pull
thirty-hour shifts in front of the computer and then crash for twelve hours.
They found the machines so fascinating that they forgot about everything else
while they were working. At the same time, they nurtured an ideology that held
that all information should be free, ate Chinese take-out, and taught
themselves how to pick every lock in the computer science building - which
they justified with their devotion to putting all available equipment to its
best use. Many considered this behavior to be careless and disrespectful, but
the hackers considered it necessary to get the job done.

The fact is that the hackers constituted a homogeneous group that should be the
envy of any teacher: they were interested in the subject of their studies, and
they spent all day and all night solving problems related to their field. The
faculty did not try to constrain them.

At this time, the history of networks began. Two computers were connected, then
three, then many - and shortly, an entire network was created. Communicating
by computer removes a host of irritating particulars present in real life: you
don't have to dress up while punching on a keyboard, you can be totally
anonymous, nobody will notice you belching or eating with your hands, and no
one will know what the color of your skin is. Another user forms his or her
opinion of you solely based on your written communication. Social status
identifiers are virtually erased, and your opinions are just as valid as
anyone else's. Nobody can beat you, fire you, or repress you if you decide to
be insolent or speak from your heart. People who communicate by computer tend
to be surprisingly honest and forthright, since the discussion is created by
everyone and anyone can participate.

MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and other major American universities were the pillars
of the American defense project  ARPAnet , which became the core of what is
today known as the Internet. Through this network, MIT hackers came into
contact with hackers at other universities, laying the groundwork for an
national hacker culture which would later spread to Europe and, in particular,
Sweden. Many of the slang terms that can be found in  The Jargon File  (a
widely available file that includes a dictionary of hacker terminology) stem
from this period. Some of the most venerable expressions can be traced to the
original model railroad club, TMRC. In addition to the dictionary, the file
contains anecdotes and observations on the nature of hacking, making it
perhaps the most important written work of the original hacker culture.

When hacker culture spread from MIT through ARPAnet, it first reached the other
large American universities that performed computer research, including the
prominent Stanford and Berkeley schools on the other side of the continent.
Thanks to ARPAnet, the hackers were not hindered by geographic distances, and
could cooperate and exchange all kinds of information across this vast
expanse - a privilege that normal people would not enjoy until the 90's. In
San Francisco during the late 60's and early 70's, hackers were influenced by
hippie culture, and this influence spread throughout the hacker communities of
the entire world through ARPAnet. This was the first interaction between the
hacker community and the hippie culture.

The hacker culture first reached Sweden in 1973, when the Linköping School of
Technology (LiTH) started specializing in computer technology. The students
formed a computer association called  Lysator, which still claims to be the
oldest computer club in Sweden (which is true), and the origin of the true
Swedish hacking tradition (which is more questionable). Lysator will play a
part in later sections of this book.

Hacker culture not only has its roots in the academic realm; these university
hackers only constitute a small part of the digital culture scene. Now and
then someone comes along and states that only the hackers that attend college
and basically live in the computer labs are "real" hackers. Such a statement
is ignorant and stupid. The meaning of a word is, naturally, defined by its
users, and anyone who chooses to call him- or herself a hacker has the right
to do so.

If we now allow the 60's to roll into the 70's, we will observe a monumental
event: the introduction of the high-tech amateurs, who were just as much
hackers as Bill Gosper and his MIT buddies.

--------------------------------------------
Chapter 3: THE GRASS-ROOTS OF HACKER CULTURE
--------------------------------------------

The grass-roots of hacker culture consisted of amateur radio and electronics
hobbyists, who built their own microcomputers using the very first mail-order
kits. Radio amateurs have been around since 1915, and they are organized in
several camps. The most puritan insist that the telegraph key and Morse code
are still the best tools for international communication. Others prefer radio
telephony, i.e. voice transmissions. Still others have tried amateur TV, and
some fiddle around with data communication by radio. Radio amateurs are found
in any city worth its name, and many have turned to data transfer through the
Internet, where they explore yet another means of communication. In a sense,
the radio enthusiasts became the first hackers, even before MIT.

The radio amateurs, as opposed to the hackers, seldom attracted young people to
any great extent. In Sweden, part of the reason is that you have to be sixteen
years old and become certified to use shortwave radios. The average Swedish
youth can't afford the courses and testing required for radio certification.
Some mess around with radio anyway, and are known as radio pirates.
Broadcasting amateur radio without certification is not a big deal, as long as
you don't cause problems. You have to be careful to stick to the correct
frequencies; broadcasting on bands that are reserved for specific purposes,
such as emergency or military channels, carries a risk of being traced and
fined. To keep track of what frequencies to use to avoid trouble, radio
amateurs soon began cooperating internationally. This became the first
virtual society , which transcended geographic boundaries but was limited by
technology.

Radio amateurs embody a great deal of the culture that would later be adopted
by the hackers: a fascination with technology (machines), and a fascination
with interpersonal communication. Some are constantly on the lookout for new,
cool equipment (gadget freaks). Others only want to find ways to communicate
with other people as efficiently as possible, and try to improve existing
systems (evolutionists), and some feel that they've mastered an aspect of
technology and simply stay with it (these are sometimes called conservatives).
Finally, there are those that most amateurs do not want anything to do with:
the people that think that broadcasting pirate radio is the most awesome thing
in the world, and who use technology as a means of rebelling against society.

The early computer-oriented electronics hobbyists initially gathered around the
very first personal computer: the  Altair 8800 , which was introduced as a
mail-order kit in 1975. The computer got its name from a planet in a Star Trek
episode, and sold in such large quantities that some of the enthusiasts formed
their own user groups. They were invariably electronics hobbyists, and often
professional engineers. Virtually all of them were adults, but they were
struck by the same technical fascination with programming that kept the
university hackers awake all night and made them forget everything but the
machines. The most active user group was the  Homebrew Computer Club  in San
Fransisco. One of its members was  Steve Wozniak , a dedicated hacker who was
to build the  Apple II  computer. His friend  Steve Jobs  successfully
marketed it in 1977 as the first real personal computer. Homebrew Computer
Club's Swedish counterpart was called  PD68 , which catered to happy engineers
and others who found microcomputers fascinating.

Personal Computers for a Broad Market
-------------------------------------

In 1978, the Swedish companies Luxor and Scandia Metric contracted with  Data
Industrier AB  (DIAB) to build a computer called  ABC80 . DIAB manufactured
the chips, while Luxor built the case, monitor, and keyboard. Despite its
monochrome display (which required a special monitor), the ABC80 was a quality
machine. As with its contemporaries Apple II and Tandy Radio Shack TRS-80, the
established American computer industry considered these computers virtually
useless. IBM displayed no interest whatsoever. The current trend was toward
manufacturing minicomputers such as Digital Equipment's enormous DEC, since
the industry giants (spearheaded by IBM and Digital) projected a global need
for about 50 large computers in the year 2000. Users would connect to these
computers through terminal networks.

It is unclear what prompted Luxor and Scandia Metric to produce a computer for
the regular consumer. Most likely, the chief engineers observed personal
computing trends in the U.S., where the Apple II and TRS-80 had entered
mass-production, and somehow persuaded the management to approve such a
venture.

ABC80 became a great success among Sweden's early computer enthusiasts, who had
been waiting a long time for a real computer (previous computers had been very
expensive and directly imported from the U.S.). Now there was one - and to top
it off, it was Swedish! In 1981, it was succeeded by the ABC800. In 1980,
electronics hobbyists, engineers, and other enthusiasts formed  ABC-klubben
(the ABC Club) under the leadership of the legendary  Gunnar Tidner . The ABC
Club showed an interest in computer communications from the start, and at the
end of that year it opened  Monitorn  (The Monitor), which probably was
Sweden's first non-profit BBS. It ran thanks to a program written by Tidner
himself. For the rest of the 80's, most new Swedish BBS's were named
X-Monitorn  (such as Örebro-Monitorn, Eskilstuna-Monitorn, etc.) as a tribute
to Tidner's breakthrough. The club still has a "monitor" that's used as an
internal switchboard for all kinds of things.

The ABC Club grew exponentially as personal computing in Sweden became all the
rage it was in the U.S. It became a center for debating the technology of ABC
computers as well as data communications in general. In 1985, through a
contract with the QZ Computer Center in Stockholm, the ABC club gained access
to a DEC-10 computer. On this machine, the members started a central BBS
(a "real" conferencing system) with several discussion groups. The BBS, named
Q-Zentralen  (The Q-Zentral) ran on QZ's KOM-system, and resembled past and
present networks such as U.S.A.'s Usenet and Prodigy, or England's Compunet.

Many of the pioneers of the future electronic Sweden were found on Q-Zentral's
discussion groups:  Sven Wickberg, Anders Franzén, Henrik Schyffert,  and
Jan-Inge Flücht.

It was not until the early 80's, after the introduction of small, cheap
computers, that any real changes in personal computing took place. It was no
longer necessary to know how to build your own equipment; therefore, anyone
who could afford it could have access to their own computer (albeit not very
advanced). Overnight, an array of personal computers appeared, in the U.S. as
well as Europe: Sord, Atari 800, Sol, Texas TI-99A, Vic-20, Spectravideo, etc.
Most remained on the market for only a few years before production was halted
and/or their manufacturers went bankrupt. In Sweden, only three survived the
competition:  Sinclair ZX-80  (thanks to its low price),  ABC-80  (because of
its industrial applications and strong support from the ABC-Club), and
Commodore 64  (which will be referred to as the  C64 ), simply because it was
the most technologically advanced home computer of the time. Even the first
PC's hit the market in early 1981, but they commanded such exorbitant prices
that no normal person would consider them personal computers. In America, the
Apple II, Atari 800, Commodore PET,  and  C64  were the main survivors. Apple
II, in particular, was to the U.S. as the ABC-80 was to Sweden. To this day,
there are resilient Apple II-fanatics who still use their late 70's computers,
just like Sweden has its resilient ABC-80 users (some of which make up the
heart of the ABC80 Club).

Initially, most European hackers were of the same kind as the American ones:
old radio amateurs, engineers, or electronics enthusiasts who dreamed of using
a  real  computer such as VAX or IBM (those lovely, gray, refrigerator-looking
things) instead of simple home computers. The hacker culture from MIT in the
60's, and its extension of the radio amateurs' philosophy, were considered an
ideal; a real hacker was a person who wrote programs that did something useful
(or appeared to do something useful), or who had mastered electronics and
could modify their computer to the amazement of their friends. The most
fortunate computer clubs had been able to start their own BBS's on a used
minicomputer purchased from some company. The hackers that had gotten started
on ABC80, minicomputers, and electronics were generally shocked and somewhat
disgusted by the culture that emerged in the mid-80's through the invasion of
the C64 (this will be discussed in the chapter 5,  Subculture of the
Subcultures ). Many of those hackers have now obtained a PC, and consider
writing shareware programs and other real "hacks" to be a noble art.

Hackers of this sort also started the alternative computer network  Fidonet .
In San Francisco, amateurs  Tom Jennings  and  John Madill  devised a system
in which different BBS's called each other according to a specific pattern,
and through skillful coordination managed to provide coverage as broad as the
Internet's. The main difference was that electronic mail had longer delivery
times, and there were no permanent connections; the mail was distributed
through substations, just like in an old-fashioned postal system. The network
also allowed for globally accessible discussion groups. In the beginning of
1985, the Swedish Fidonet was started in Karlstad by  Conny Johnsson .

Because of the increased affordability of the Internet, many think that Fidonet
has become obsolete. Far from everyone agrees - Fidonet is a true amateur
creation, while the Internet has mainly been constructed by academicians.
However, for a long time there have been bridges connecting the two networks,
enabling their respective users to send mail to each other. Personal computing
became a public concept, and many teenagers received their first computer in
the mid-80's. Most futuristic parents who bought a computer probably hadn't
expected their children to spend as much time on the computer as they did, but
this was a result of a marketing glitch. Personal computers were marketed as
office systems to be used for financial, word processing, and database
applications, for all of which they turned out to be quite useless.
Apparently, it was simpler to find a recipe in a cookbook than to boot up the
computer and look through some database which took five minutes to load. The
only "useful" tasks that the machines could perform efficiently were word
processing and simple calculations, which was something that few people were
familiar with or could appreciate.

The only adults who really used their computers were almost exclusively
technicians or technology fans, who could stay up all night and fight with
their ABC80 to make it do one thing or another. Many were electronics
hobbyists that modified the computer to suit their own wants and needs. (I
belong to the wave of youths who were completely captured by the ABC computers
around 13 or 14 years of age; for many in my generation, those machines became
a ticket to the electronic world).

It would be until the 90's before the personal computer really got its
breakthrough as a popular appliance - but when it came, it came with a
vengeance. It is only recently that IBM PC's have become common in the home.
If it hadn't been for the Altair 8800, Apple II, Atari 800, and ABC80, it
would never even have occurred to IBM to manufacture PC's. The previous trend
had been toward building mainframes: mammoth boxes that consumed several
kilowatts per hour, and generated so much heat that they needed a separate
cooling system to be able to operate. The idea of one computer for each user
was and remains  a hacker's notion, which goes all the way back to MIT, where
many late nights were spent working alone on a PDP-1.

Had these microcomputers not emerged, the industry would still be working on
their 50 supercomputers that were to provide computing power for the entire
world. Without the microcomputer, modern information systems such as the
Client-Server  model (in which a coordinated network of computers distribute
tasks and information between them) would never have been invented.

------------------------------
Chapter 4: UNDERGROUND HACKERS
------------------------------

As a product of the home computing trend and the futuristic spirit that
followed the space race (which culminated in the moon landing in 1969),
several technology-oriented subcultures formed. Some were perfectly normal
associations of science-fiction enthusiasts and amateur radio hobbyists.
Others were...  peculiar.  It was these organizations that drew a stigma on
hacker culture, and are responsible for the fact that hackers are frequently
thought of as criminals. How many of you - raise your right hand - have ever
pondered what it would be like to have control of technology? To have the
power to decide what radio and television programs will be broadcast? Imagine
having these enormous electronic systems under your control. Imagine being
able to fill all TV screens with white noise when that guy you hate shows up,
or knock out all the telephones in the nation when you know that your beloved
is chatting sweetly with his/her ex-lover. Imagine being the  master  of the
information systems of society...

Phreakers
---------

A collection of electronics fanatics in the 60's and 70's, called  Phone
Phreaks , were among the first to study the emerging computer technologies.
These "phreakers" specialized in fooling the phone companies' switches into
connecting free calls all over the continent, through a technique called  Blue
Boxing  (which refers to a small blue box containing electronic components
that produced the tones which manipulated the switches).

Some of the phreakers were university students. As the hackers had been
mesmerized by computer technology, others had found it fascinating to try
different number sequences on the school's telephones to see how far you could
get connected. Some succeeded in connecting to the public telephone networks
and call for free, since the school's local telephone network was a
complimentary service.

A young man by the name of  Mark Bernay  (a. k. a.  The Midnight Skulker ) had
in-depth knowledge of the phone system. He went up and down the American West
Coast and put up notices in phone booths with party-line numbers that he had
established, and in this manner created a small network of technology-oriented
youths. However, these youngsters did not turn phreaking into the considerable
criminal operation it is today.

Instead, a man called  Joe Engressia  created (without knowing it) the
underground movement of telephone manipulators at the end of the 60's. Even
though the telephone company (then called Bell) had traced and prosecuted the
first phreakers back in 1961, few of them had been members of an organized
movement: most were businessmen, some were general laborers or students, and
one was even a millionaire. The reason for this wave of phreaking was that
Bell had made publicly available the information that anyone needed to build a
blue box.

Joe Engressia was blind, but he had been compensated by the fascinating gift of
perfect pitch. He could recall a note he had heard, and perfectly reproduce it
by whistling. At age eight, he had already discovered that he could manipulate
the system of telephone switches by whistling certain tones. These systems
were called  multi-frequency systems  (MF), and it was information about these
systems that Bell made the mistake of publishing in 1960. Joe was arrested
after connecting free calls for some friends by simply whistling into the
receiver. Thanks to the publicity surrounding the incident, Joe and other
telephone enthusiasts formed a rapidly growing underground network mainly
consisting of blind people. A few knew how to whistle the tones, while others
employed early keyboards and synthesizers to produce the necessary sounds.
Through Joe, phreaking grew into a major youth movement. He was arrested again
in 1971, and was given a suspended sentence in exchange for promising never to
manipulate telephones again. Later, he was hired by a small Tennessee company
as a telephone repairman.

Allow me to make an observation at this point. Frequently, I hear of people
that claim to know someone who can "whistle" their way through the telephone
system and call for free. The person telling the story is never the one that
knows how to do this, and upon closer inspection it turns out that it was
really a friend of a friend... etc. Stories about "whistlers" should be
treated as common myths, just like many other stories about phreakers and
hackers. Please note that "whistling"  requires  perfect pitch, which is a
talent that few people possess. It is also necessary to know (and have
listened to) the tones that are required. Therefore, there is a diminishing
number of people who would be able to do the trick - perhaps only a handful in
any given country. Finally, this technique is useless against modern telephone
systems such as the AXE-system ( translator's note : AXE is an acronym for
Automatic Cross-Connection Equipment).

Joe and his buddies used keyboards to make calls. Other methods to produce the
necessary tones were even more common.  John T. Draper , a. k. a.  Cap'n
Crunch , used a toy whistle from boxes of the cereal brand with the same name.
By covering one of the holes and blowing through the whistle, he produced a
tone with the frequency of exactly 2600 Hz (which roughly corresponds to an E
in the five-times-accented octave - not a very pleasant tone). This happened
to be the exact note that AT&T and other long-distance companies used to
indicate that long-distance lines were available. If either party to a call
emitted this tone, the switch performing the call would be fooled into
thinking that the call had ended (because that was how the switches signaled
that the line was free), and therefore all billing for the call stopped. The
whistle enabled people to call for free.

Draper was a very active phreaker. He initiated big party-line calls where he
came into contact with many of the blind people, and disseminated his
knowledge among other phreakers. He kept a list of contacts and directed the
exchange of ideas between phreakers. Like some of them, he was an electronics
fanatic, and himself built the tone generators that allowed total control of
the entire telephone system. These generators were called MF-boxes (or, as
mentioned earlier, Blue Boxes), and gave their owners complete access to
national and international telephone traffic - totally free. It wasn't very
difficult to construct these boxes, since all information concerning the
MF-system had been made public. As it is not exactly cheap to replace an
entire telephone system, there are still countries whose systems can be
manipulated by blue boxes.

Many were (like Drapner) completely spellbound by the blue boxes' power to hook
up calls across the world through cables and satellites; they inspired a
feeling of unlimited power over the telephone system. One of Draper's more
known tricks was to connect back to himself around the globe through seven
countries, simply for the incredible satisfaction of hearing his own voice
with a 20-second delay.

In 1971, the media caught wind of the phreaking phenomenon. One journalist,
John Rosenbaum , wrote an article about the movement, and Draper was arrested
and imprisoned shortly after its publication. He was approached by the Mafia
(who wanted to exploit his skills), and severely beaten after he refused. Upon
his release, an old friend (Steve Wozniak, who developed the Apple II
computer) came to his aid and made him quit phreaking in favor of programming.
After a few modem-related incidents on the Apple II (the modems in question
were rather computerized blue boxes), he wrote the word processing program
Easy Writer , which was sold by IBM with their PCs. He made more than a
million dollars off the project.

In the same year (1971), the hippies discovered the possibility of making free
calls. A militant faction of the hippie movement, known as  yippies , started
a magazine called  Youth International Party Line  (the name both referred to
the political nature of the movement and to its obvious telephonic emphasis).
The paper's mission was to teach methods of telephone fraud. Yippies are a
kind of tough hippies that do not hesitate to use violence and terrorism to
obliterate (as far as possible) American society. They also advocate the use
of hallucinogens. Yippies consist of people that have become so sick of
American society and its system that they only see one solution to the
problem - total destruction. As opposed to classical anarchists, they were not
opposed to technology; rather, they exploited all knowledge and resources
available to them. One of the most frightening aspects of the yippie movement
was that many of its members were quite  intelligent . The yippies represented
fundamentally different values and norms, which rocked the foundation of
American culture. This political force would later sow the seeds of the
ideology that is today known as  cyberpunk , to which I will return in a
separate chapter. Prominent yippie leaders include  Abbie Hoffman  and  Jerry
Rubin.

In 1973, a faction of technology fanatics broke away from the yippie movement
and formed an expressly anti-social and anarchistic organization around the
paper (now known as  TAP , or  Technical Assistance Program ) .  In this new
version, the magazine provided instruction in subjects far beyond simple
telephone scams: it contained formulas for explosives, blueprints for
electronic sabotage, information on credit card fraud, etc. Much of this
content was naturally "exciting" for teenagers and slightly immature young
men, and the periodical was widely copied and transmitted across the globe.
Within a short period of time, there was a global network of phreakers. The
basic philosophy of the paper is still the same as that of the yippie party
(Youth International Party).

In TAP, peculiar forms of writing were introduced, such as substituting "z"
for "s", 0 (zero) for o, and spelling the word freak "phreak". These trends
have remained. In the early 90's, a character named  B1FF  showed up on the
Usenet computer network and took this abuse of the written word to the limits
of the absurd, writing words the way they were pronounced rather than the way
they were spelled. B1FF combined this practice with an artificial habit of
typing 1 for I, 4 for A, + for T, 3 (a reversed E) for E, etc. B1FF's
typographical antics drove some people totally nuts, but the hackers thought
the practice was super-cool and started writing like B1FF, to annoy generally
anal-retentive people and to put an anarchistic stamp on the otherwise
disciplined Usenet. They have even gone so far as to randomly mix lower- and
upercase letters, resulting in text that is almost  painful  to read.

In Sweden, a sister publication to TAP surfaced. It was called  Rolig Teknik
("Fun With Technology"), and aroused some attention in the dailies. Rolig
Teknik was started by  Nils Johan Alsätra,  a legendary figure in Swedish
underground culture. He was inspired by TAP, and published several articles
between 1984 and 1993, all based on the same social philosophy as that of its
American counterpart. The publication described how to make fake hundred-crown
notes to fool gas station machines ( translator's note : In Sweden, the  crown
is the official unit of currency, and most gas stations have automatic
gasoline dispensers that are used outside the station's business hours), how
to fool electric meters, and (naturally) different methods for making free
calls. Nils started the magazine after being fined for building and selling
Black Boxes  (or, as he himself termed them,  unit-eaters ), which enabled
owners to make free calls after connecting the boxes to their telephone jacks.
Before he started selling them, he gave the phone company the opportunity to
purchase the device for three million crowns (about $450,000). The phone
company never replied.

Rolig Teknik expired after a raid in Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1993. The raid was
precipitated by the event that Alsätra had begun to publish anonymous
classifieds where the advertisers could offer goods, using the paper as a
middle-man, without having to display their name and address. For every
transaction where the payment was handled by the publication, Rolig Teknik
received SEK 10 (SEK=Swedish crowns, SEK 10 = about $1.50). Since the content
of many of these ads was rather questionable, this practice was considered
equivalent to fencing and arms dealing. After the police obtained permission
from the executive branch of the government (for the first time in Swedish
history), they raided the editorial offices of the paper. Since then, not a
peep has been heard about the paper or Alsätra himself. The possibility of
using the "unit-eaters" that Alsätra invented disappeared with the modern AXE
telephone system, but many of the other tricks remain effective to this day.

For the modern hacker, magazines such as  Phrack  or  Phun  are the hottest
items. In Sweden, there is also a newfangled print magazine (in the spirit of
Rolig Teknik) called  Alias 1 . Phrack is probably the most popular, since it
has received a great deal of publicity. It is free to individuals, while
organizations and governmental institutions have to pay $100 per year for a
subscription. In this way, the authorities actually help finance the
publication of the magazine, since they have to keep up with underground
trends   and developments  2 . As the telephone companies have started to fix
the glitches in their systems, phreakers have learned to use exceptionally
sophisticated methods to make free calls. One technique involves actually
reprogramming phone company switches. Another consists of using stolen or
artificial credit card numbers to bill the call to some other (sometimes
non-existent) person or company. Ideally, the bill should be sent to
international conglomerates such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's, or the phone
companies themselves.

The point of using credit cards is that by calling through a specific 800
number, you should be able to bill the call to the card in question, no matter
which private or public phone you are calling from. Since you can't show the
card to an operator (human or computerized), you enter the card number and PIN
( Private Identification Number , a personal code associated with the card
number) that are necessary for credit purchases over the phone.

Another free-call method is to use a  PBX  ( Private Branch eXchange) , which
is usually a corporation's internal switchboard. Using a PBX frequently
involves dialing an 800 number associated with an automated switchboard,
entering a code, and then dialing the number of the desired target. The call
will be billed to the company that owns (or employs) the switchboard. The
procedure is a simplified and automated version of the debit/credit card
payment system, which means that a human operator is not required to verify
and record numbers and codes. In the beginning, PIN codes were not even used;
it was simply a matter of calling the correct toll-free number and then
dialing the desired phone number. It was believed that keeping the toll-free
number secret would offer enough protection. Since phreakers are known to
systematically dial extensive series of 800 numbers, they soon discovered that
it was possible to dial other locations from some of these numbers, and before
long the phone companies introduced PINs. For reasons which I will soon
explain, PBX codes are constantly circulating outside the spheres of their
proper owners.

The phreakers, then, more or less randomly dial toll-free numbers in their
search for PBXs, computers, phone company switches, and other interesting
telecommunications devices, a practice commonly referred to as  war-dialling
(from the movie  War Games ) or simply  scanning  (this practice is by no
means illegal; the point of having a telephone is to be able to call the
numbers you want, and as many as you want). During these treks across the
phone networks, phreakers often run into all kinds of intriguing things, such
as the phone companies' private service lines and  voice mail boxes  (VMBs).
Through voice mail boxes, you can send messages to each other if nothing else
works (read: in case the phone company has blocked all other means of
communicating for free). Voice mail is usually employed by large corporations
with many employees on the go, such as consulting or sales and marketing
companies, as a more efficient alternative to written communication. Voice
mail boxes use private codes just like an ATM machine, and the codes are just
as easy to crack (simple codes like 1234, 0001, or the same number as that of
the box itself are common). Some voice mail boxes also allow for further
connections, which means that it's possible to call long-distance from such a
box.

Most phreakers learn of technical methods and stolen or faked codes from other
phreakers. Information of this kind is often disseminated by private BBSs and
confidential relationships. Most people involved with phreaking know nothing
about actually getting these codes or what the technical instructions they
receive actually mean. They simply follow the instructions and advice they
receive from others, punch in a few numbers and Presto! - they're hooked up
with the other side of the world!

However, there are also people like John Draper, who really know what they're
doing. The most zealous ones are often youngsters less than 20 years old, who
nevertheless possess enough knowledge to match a degree in electrical
engineering, or  beyond . Naturally, this is considered a very dangerous
situation in a society where  knowledge is power. Of course, the phone
companies' systems are idiot-proof. Not even all the idiots in the world would
be able to re-program a telephone switch to give them free calls. The problem
is the smart criminals.

Bright, inquisitive youths, who want to know how the phone networks function,
usually begin by reading standard, college-level telecommunications
literature. Many of the more accomplished ones could easily pass professional
exams with a flourish. They master the jargon of communications technicians,
and are able to recite obvious acronyms such as DCE, OSI, V.24, MUX, NCC, or
PAD in their sleep. They seem to have a sort of fetish for the telephone
network.

Not all (but a great majority) of the technical information regarding the
telephone systems is public. The missing details are usually discovered
through a method called "trashing", which entails going to the dumpsters
outside a major telecommunications company and digging through the trash for
useful documentation (that should have been run through a paper shredder,
since it is not at all appropriate literature for teenage technology
geniuses). In this manner, phreakers find out about functions, system
commands, and secret phone numbers that are meant for internal use. Sometimes
it's worse - the hackers actually have access to a person on the inside, who
intentionally reveal company secrets to them. Today, these security leaks have
been virtually eradicated, despite the fact that the number of people that
must have access to this information is great. Trashing is also performed to
retrieve obsolete or discarded equipment, which is not really a criminal
practice. It is also not very common, especially in Sweden.

The art of "social engineering" is more widespread (and often more effective).
The technique is based on attacking the weakest link in the entire phone and
banking system: the human being. The expression comes from the telemarketing
field, where it is part of the telemarketer's job to dissimulate him- or
herself and focus on the customer's weaknesses, to build trust while still
remaining concise and effective. The following is an example of social
engineering by a phreaker, loosely based on a case published in a highly
improper hacker periodical (WARNING: use this example to protect yourself and
others from becoming victims of this type of crime, not to commit the same
type of crime yourself. If you abuse this information, I will be sorely
disappointed!).

P  = Phreaker
V = Innocent victim
T = The victim's telephone

T : Ring!
V : Hello!
P:  Hello, is this Mr. X?
V:  Yes... who's calling?
P : Good morning, this is Noam Chomsky at the Accounts Security Division of the
Chase Manhattan Bank. How are you doing this morning?
V : Er... just fine. What's the problem?
P : We have a situation here right now involving our databases. Your Chase Visa
card is currently unusable due to the loss of a large portion of our customer
files. If you would give me your card number and PIN, we can restore your
account immediately.
V : Just a minute, who did you say you were?
P : My name is Noam Chomsky, and I'm with the Accounts Security Division of
Chase Manhattan Bank. There's a situation here... (repeats what he just said)
V : (Suspicious) I wasn't aware of this. Is there a number I can call you back
on?
P : Sure, no problem. I appreciate your carefulness. Give me a call back at
800-555-5555, (fake number that connects to a phone booth or that has been
programmed into the phone company switches by P himself, which he can remove
at will without trace. Naturally, it's not his home phone number).
V : Thanks! Talk to you in a moment.
T : Click. Silence. Buzz...
P : Chase Manhattan Bank, Accounts Security Division, Noam Chomsky speaking.
How can I help you?
V : Great! This is Mr. X. I was afraid you were a scammer. OK, my Visa card
number is XXXX... and my PIN is XXXX.
P : (Pauses, writing). Thank you. We will restore your account as soon as
possible. Please refrain from using your card during the next 24 hours.
Goodbye, and thank you for your cooperation.
V : Goodbye.
T : Click.


If you fall for this type of con, the consequences could be devastating.
Normally, the credit card companies will absorb the loss if you can prove that
it wasn't you that used the card, but if you can't... ouch! It is not only
consumer credit accounts that are victimized; company accounts are also
relentlessly exploited in this manner. Other methods of obtaining card numbers
include trashing (see above) or simply searching through mail boxes for
letters from banks that might contain cards or PINs.

Credit card numbers are also used by phreakers to purchase merchandise, such as
computers and peripherals, synthesizers, stereo equipment, and other capital
goods. The criminal orders the merchandise for general delivery or gives the
address of an abandoned building, which makes it impossible to trace the
perpetrator. This method is known as "carding" among phreakers and hackers. A
fair number of Swedes have been arrested and sentenced for these crimes. A
considerably  greater number have (as usual) gotten away with it.

Phreakers are social people, who love to use their skills to talk for  hours
about basically nothing and everything. Naturally, conversation tends to focus
on methods, codes, and other things that are essential to phreaking. Sometimes
international party conferences lasting up to eight hours are created. Some
talk, others simply listen, someone hangs up and someone else dials in. The
conversation lasts as long as the moderator can maintain it, or until the
phone company catches on and disconnects it. A very famous conference was the
2111-conference , which took place on the 2111 number in Vancouver (a test
number for telex transmissions). Phreakers as well as sympathizing operators
(!) used to call this number to chat away a few hours.

Clearly, these practices are illegal and terribly immoral, etc. However, I am
sure that some readers would agree that it is rather amusing to see a few
bright teenagers using the conferencing systems of multi-national corporations
to set up global party lines, simply in order to  shoot the bull  for a while!
The phreakers consider this gross exploitation to be harmless, at least in
those cases where they just snatch bandwidth by using technical tricks. They
are of the opinion that since the cables are already there, why not use them?
Where's the harm in that? Does it damage the phone network? Hardly, unless you
don't know what you're doing. Does it hurt any individuals? Not as long as you
stay away from hospital and military lines. Do the phone companies lose money?
Not at all, since none of the phreakers would have made these calls if they
had to pay for them. Does it overload the phone network, forcing the companies
to expand? No it doesn't, since international connections have a fairly high
ceiling.

The real crime committed by phreakers is that of interfering with the social
order. What if everyone started doing this? Everything would go straight to
hell! International lines would break down, and chaos and anarchy would ensue.
It's not a question of theft; more appropriately, it is a question of  order .
Stealing credit card numbers and using them, on the other hand, is fraud.
These arguments are completely irrelevant to a true yippie, since he/she is
only out to destroy society. In contrast, many phreakers are fairly average
and law-abiding members of the middle and working classes. However, they have
taken  Nietzsche  to heart and consider themselves a type of elite (or even
superhuman) with the natural right to take advantage of the system. They would
never suggest that  everyone  should exploit these systems in this manner, and
claim that they also want to help the phone companies discover their security
gaps by pointing out existing flaws. Therefore, they contend that actions can
not be defined as good or evil solely on a legal basis, just like Zarathustra
through Nietzsche had to reject the concepts of  right  and  wrong . This has
nothing to do with fascism; it's a theory of the improvement of systems
through individual transcendence.

The phreaker magazine TAP has been followed by other publications such as
2600: The Hacker Quarterly  (the name is derived from the 2600-Hz tone that
was discussed earlier),  Iron Feather Journal, and a cornucopia of electronic
magazines that are too numerous to list.

Telia  [Translator's note:  Telia is the largest telephone company in Sweden,
and is a governmentally supported corporation. Before deregulation a few years
ago, it was a state agency that had a monopoly on telecommunications traffic
in Sweden] is reluctant to acknowledge that phreakers exist, and it would be
safe to assume that a number of phreaking cases are kept in the dark (most
likely to avoid consumer complaints such as: "Why do  they  get to call for
free when  I  have to pay?", "Why doesn't somebody  do  something about
this?", " I'm  by God an honest taxpayer, and I  demand ...", etc. etc.).

In Sweden, phreakers have actually succeeded in manufacturing fake phone cards,
re-programming mobile phones to bill to someone else's number, using Telia's
own access codes, using blue boxes to fool Telia's switches, and (most
frequently) using foreign credit card numbers to make international calls 3 .
Additionally, the oldest form of phreaking (known as  gray-boxing ) still
plays a part. Gray boxes (predecessors to the blue ones) are the boxes found
attached to telephone poles or beside the electric company's fuse boxes. By
hooking into a gray box, you can physically connect yourself to someone else's
phone line and make calls in their name.

There are no reports on the extent of these crimes, and Telia would rather have
it that way. To put the spotlight on security breaches would be fatal in the
current market, where Telia competes with private telephone companies and has
to be concerned with its image. Therefore, incidents of fraud are frequently
covered up.

The situation is even worse in the United States, where many phreakers have
studied corporate public relations in depth in order to use social engineering
to set up fake credit cards or telephone service. They exploit the
corporations' strong emphasis on customer service to pit the telephone
companies against each other. For example, if a phreaker encounters problems
in setting up a fake 800 number, he or she will say something like "well, if
that's the way it's going to be, I might as well call X or Y or Z
(competitors)". This serves to discourage phone company sales reps from asking
too many questions or asking for too many details.

These problems point to shortcomings in a society where social interaction
between businesses and people has become neglected, due to the extreme  size
of modern corporations. The social aspect of a business has been separated
from its sphere of productivity in the struggle toward increased efficiency,
which has created an anonymous society. According to conversations I have had
with phreakers, the large companies are the easiest to deceive: they can't
tell who's fake and who's for real since they've never encountered either one
in person. The only available means of separating the wheat from the chaff is
by observing what the individual  sounds like  and the quality of his/her
vocabulary and verbal communication. The phone companies have turned into
anonymous logotypes toward their customers, and as long as the business world
works this way, phreakers will find ways to call for free.

Network hackers
---------------
Let us now leave the telephone networks and take a look at computer networks.
As technology fanatics, the phreakers soon discovered computer technology.
There were plenty of phreakers similar to Cap'n Crunch, who initially engaged
in phreaking because they didn't have access to computers. Together with
renegade college students and other less savory characters, they created small
hacker groups that engaged in downright intrusive activities. In addition to
being experts at tweaking telco switches, many of these hackers attained great
proficiency in manipulating the large computer systems (VAX, IBM etc.) that
governed the nodes of the Internet, which had become virtually global by the
late 80's. These systems were usually  UNIX systems  (synonyms include
machine ,  site ,  host ,  mainframe , etc.). Others specialized in VAX
systems, which used the VMS operating system instead of UNIX. VMS became
somewhat more popular among hackers, since it was easier to penetrate than
UNIX.

The first hackers to become publicly known were  Ronald Mark Austin  and the
members of his hacking group  414-gang , based in Milwaukee. 414-gang
started "hacking" remote computers as early as 1980, and it was the 1983
discovery (just after the opening of the movie  War Games ) of these hackers
that sparked the entire debate of hackers and computer security. The 414-gang
had entered the computer system of a cancer hospital in New York. While the
group was removing the traces of the intrusion (after an interview in the New
York Times, which included a demonstration of possible entry methods), they
accidentally erased the contents of a certain file in an incorrect manner,
with resulting in the destruction of the entire file. The mere  notion  of the
possibility of this file containing important research results, or a patient
journal, was terrifying. Prior to 1983, few people knew what hackers were.
Now, everyone talked about them. It was probably this early debate that imbued
the word with its negative connotations.

Personally, I use the term  network hacker  (they are also known as  crackers
or  netrunners ) to define this type of hacker. Most of the first-generation
network hackers used Apple II computers, for which there were several phreaker
magazines such as  Bootlegger . These magazines would become the predecessors
of the future multitude of hacking and phreaking publications. When network
hackers came to Europe, they primarily used C64 computers, and had no papers
or magazines since such a tradition hadn't emerged among European hackers.
This lack of forums greatly limited European hackers' activities. As they
didn't have access to American Apple II's, they couldn't read the American
hacking publications to learn to hack better. Network hacking has  never  been
as extensive on this (the European) side of the Atlantic.

A funny detail is that after the 414-gang became famous, most hacker groups
developed a penchant for putting equally incomprehensible numbers before or
after their proper names. 414-gang derived its number from the Milwaukee area
code.

It can be difficult to immediately understand what it means to "gain entry" to
a computer system. To "crack" or "break into" a system simply entails
convincing a remote computer to do things it isn't supposed to do (for you, at
least). It could be referred to as instigation or fraud in more common terms.
Let me illustrate it through the following dialogue:

"Hello",  the computer says.
"Hi,"  says the hacker,  "I would like some information."
"Hold on a minute",  the computer responds.  "Who do you think you are?"
"I'm the system administrator",  the hacker says (or something like that).
"Oh well, then it's OK",  says the computer and gives the hacker the desired
information.

Naturally, it doesn't look like this in real life, but the principle is the
same. Hacking into a system involves a form of social engineering applied to
electronic individuals. Since computers aren't that smart to begin with, one
can't call them stupid for not being able to tell the difference between a
system administrator or a hacker. Therefore, many think that the hacker is not
playing fair by tricking the computer in this way (similar to stealing candy
from a baby). To enable the computer to distinguish between a hacker and the
system administrator, it has been given special identifying strings that the
user must repeat, together with his or her username, when access is needed.
These are called  passwords , and the idea is that hackers shouldn't know
about them. Sometimes, hackers find out what the password(s) is/are anyway, or
in some other manner convince the computer to think that they are the system
administrator or someone else who has the right to access the computer. An
functioning username-password pair is called a  NUI  (Network User
Identification, or user identity). A hacker sometimes refers to security
systems as  ICE  (Intrusion Countermeasure Electronics). The on-screen
exchange between a hacker and a computer can look something like this:

*** WELCOME TO LEKSAND KOMMUNDATA ICE ***

UserID:  QSECOFR (the hacker enters a name)
Password : ******* (the hacker enters a password, which is normally not echoed
to the screen)
SECURITY OFFICER LOGGED IN AT 19.07 . (The userID and password together
constitute a valid user identity named "Security Officer").
ENTER COMMAND>  GO MAIN (the hacker has "gained access" to the system). 4

The usual methods for finding passwords are not that spectacular. The simplest
is to glance over an authorized user's shoulder, or actually recording the
log-in keystrokes on video (since they rarely appear on the screen).
Other "tricks" include searching for notes under desktop pads, or guessing
different combinations of initials, birthdates, or other words and numbers
that relate to the person whose user identity the hacker wants to take over.
It is especially common for users to use their spouse's maiden name as a
password. If the target identity is that of a system officer, the hacker tries
different computing terms. All of this falls under the definition of social
engineering, which I mentioned in relation to phreaking. A surprisingly
effective method is simply calling the system operator and saying that you are
an employee who's forgotten his/her password. "Trashing" and collecting loose
pieces of paper at computing conventions are other common techniques.

The most sophisticated methods bypass the entire security system by exploiting
gaps in the  system programs  ( operating systems ,  drivers , or
communications protocols ) running the computer in question. To be usable, a
computer must have system software running on it. Since VAX/VMS systems are
fairly rare, it is mostly UNIX systems that are attacked using this approach.
It is especially common to use glitches in the commands and protocols that
bear mysterious names such as FTP, finger, NIS, sendmail, TFTP, or UUCP.

Methods such as the above are becoming less and less viable, since the security
gaps are usually closed as soon as they are discovered. The "filling" of the
gaps is accomplished as the system administrator receives (or in a worst-case
scenario,  should have received ) disks containing updated system software,
which is then installed on the system. The programs are usually called  fixes,
patches,  or  updates.  However, many systems officers fail to completely
update the system programs, with the result that many of the security gaps
remain for quite some time. Others neglect parts of the security system
because it creates a hassle for authorized users. For example, many system
administrators remove the function which requires users to change their
password frequently, or which prevents the usage of passwords that are too
common. Some computers (in 1995) still have security holes that were cautioned
against in 1987. Swedish computers are no exception.

When a hacker has gained entry to a system, he or she can (often) easily obtain
more passwords and usernames through manipulating system software. Sometimes,
they read through electronic mail stored on the computer, in search of
passwords. Imagine one such message:  "Bob, I won't be at work on Friday, but
if you need access to my numbers, the password is 'platypus'."

Most of these hackers never caused (and still don't cause) any damage to
computer systems. Mainly, the intruders are driven by curiosity and a desire
to see "if they can do it". It's about the same type of thrill that comes from
wandering subway tunnels, or crawling through underground sewers, i.e. an
exciting form of "forbidden" exploration. In fact, hackers in general follow
an unwritten rule which states that one should  never  steal and  never
destroy anything on purpose. Those who break this rule are called  dark side
hackers  (from the movie  Star Wars ). In  Clifford Stoll's  book  The
Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage , one can
follow the chase of such a hacker.

The hacker that Stoll had problems with obviously belonged to the dark side: he
tried to systematically retrieve classified military information, and had ties
to the KGB (the events took place during the height of the Cold War). He had
the assistance of one of the most feared hacker groups:  Chaos Computer Club ,
an organization with a political agenda, founded in 1984 by  Hewart
Holland-Moritz . They purported to fight for individual rights in the
information society, and were known for killing the project for a German
information system called  Bildschirmtext , by exposing its lack of security
and reliability at a press conference.

In 1989, the case of the spying hacker made worldwide headlines, and Stoll
wrote his book shortly thereafter. The case has spurred its own mythology: one
of the players, who called himself  Hagbard , was found burned to death in a
forest, and many speculated that the death was KGB's doing. This is probably
not true; the hacker in question was named  Karl Koch , and had severe
psychological and drug problems even before he started hacking, and it was
most likely (as the police suspected) a matter of suicide. Among other things,
Koch believed that the world was ultimately controlled by the  Illuminati , a
fictional Islamic mafia that has supposedly infiltrated governments and
organizations since the 13th century, an idea he had gotten from the books by
the same name. He was also fond of psychedelic drugs, which didn't help much.
Upon closer examination, it is easy to reach the conclusion that Koch was a
raging paranoid, but the headline  "Hacker Assassinated by the KGB?"
obviously sells more papers than  "Hacker Committed Suicide?".

Koch, together with  Pengo  (Hans Hübner) and  Markus Hess , were members of
the hacker group  Leitstelle 511 , which had a clear political profile and a
taste for long nights of hacking and drug orgies. They had obtained classified
information and software through the Internet, with Markus as a UNIX expert
and Pengo masterminding the intrusions. The project, which consisted of
systematically exploring American defense installations, was code named
Project Equalizer . The name was derived from the hackers' slightly naive idea
that their espionage would even the odds between East and West in the Cold
War. This was more properly an excuse to spy for their own gain than an
expression of real political intentions. Markus and Pengo, as the two most
talented hackers of the group, mostly hacked for their own pleasure, and did
not receive any considerable financial gains. All of the involved, after being
caught, were sentenced to between one and two years imprisonment, but the
sentences were suspended. Pengo was not charged, since he had fully cooperated
with the police.

This is one of the few known cases of network hackers making money off
their "hobby". Generally, people engage in this type of hacking for the
intellectual challenge, or for the social aspects of data communications.
Kevin Mitnick  is another hacker to become more or less legendary. Originally,
he was a phreaker who developed a hitherto unsurpassed skill in manipulating
people as well as computers and telephone switches. Mitnick is the archetypal
dark side hacker: He stole the source code ( source code  is the version of a
computer program that can be read, written, and modified by humans. After a
process known as  compilation , the program is readable only to computers -
and hackers) for  Digital 's operating system  VMS 5.0  by breaking into their
software development division through phone and computer networks. He was very
vindictive, and punished police and companies that crossed him by giving them
outrageous telephone bills or spreading lies about them through phones and fax
machines. When police tried to trace his calls, he was instantly alerted and
could abort the call, since he had hacked into the phone company  Pacific
Bell 's surveillance systems. When he was arrested, he was just about to steal
the source code for the not entirely unknown computer game  Doom.

After his arrest in December 1988, he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment
and six months of rehabilitation. He was treated together with alcoholics and
drug addicts for his almost pathological obsession with hacking. Recently, he
was again apprehended after being pursued by a security expert by the name of
Tsutomu Shimomura , and a journalist named  John Markoff  (who had earlier
written a book about Mitnick).

Much of the publicity surrounding Mitnick was hyped to the point of witch
hunting. Many were of the opinion that he wasn't as dangerous as Markoff
portrayed him to be. Nevertheless, Kevin has become a symbol for
the "dangerous" hacker: cold, anti-social, vindictive, and extraordinarily
proficient in manipulating people and phone switches. On the other hand, he
was never a master of computer hacking - a field in which he has many
superiors. It is worth noting that Kevin never sold the information he
captured to any third parties. He only wanted the VMS operating system to be
able to improve his hacking skills, and he never cooperated with organized
criminals.

This type of illegal break-in has been glorified in films such as  War Games,
Sneakers  (1992),   and the TV series  Whiz Kids , and as a result, many
(completely erroneously) think that hackers in general primarily engage in
this criminal form of hacking. Even in the Swedish film  Drömmen om Rita  (
Dreaming of Rita , 1992), a romanticized hacker has one of the cameo roles. He
is a symbol for the young, the new, the wild; a modern Jack Kerouac who drifts
through the streets with his computer. The hacker is portrayed as a modern-day
beatnik. An interesting detail is that the hacker in this movie goes by the
name  Erik XIV , which is the same pseudonym used by a real hacker in a few
interviews with  Aktuellt  (a Swedish news program) and  Z-Magazine  in 1989,
where he explained how to trick credit card companies into paying for
international calls and merchandise ordered from abroad (crimes for which he
was later convicted and sentenced).

Actually, very few youths interested in computers take to criminal activities.
Nevertheless, computer crime is frequent, but the real problem is that
computer systems do not have adequate protection; no hacker would be able to
force a sufficiently protected system, even if theoretically possible. No one
can fool a computer that is smart enough. Most security breaches are probably
kept in the dark for PR reasons. As far as I know, no bank has  officially
lost money because of dark side hackers; on the other hand, if I were a bank
and some hacker transferred a few million dollars to his or her own account,
would I want to prosecute the hacker so that all of my customers would realize
how insecure my computer system was? Swedes may remember the publicity
surrounding the software bug in Sparbanken's (a large Swedish bank) computer
system in 1994...

Companies with poor security would probably find it embarrassing if the public
found out that teenage hackers could read their secrets or transfer money from
their accounts. In those cases, it's PR-correct to put a lid on the incident,
which is exactly what has happened in many instances.

The distinction between network hackers and phreakers is blurred. It is
customary to say that a  phreaker  explores computer systems for social
reasons, primarily to be able to call their friends long-distance for free,
while an intrusion-prone  hacker  explores the systems for their own sake and
for the thrill of outwitting technology. The anarchistic yippie attitude and
the urge to break down systems stem from the phreakers.

Many have rightfully questioned society's negative view of hacking, i.e. "hobby
intrusions". Hackers have been compared to cave explorers, searching for new
realms out of curiosity and a desire for challenge rather than greed. Since
the networks are so complex that there is no comprehensive map, hackers are of
the opinion that cyberspace is the uncharted territory where electronic
discussions take place, a universe which they curiously explore. To compare
hacking to burglary is insipid. During a burglary, there is physical damage to
doors and locks, and real objects are stolen. A typical hacker never damages
anything during an intrusion (very few hackers are vandals5 ), and to the
extent that he/she "steals" information, it is only copied, not removed.
Essentially, the only "theft" that takes place is a few cent's worth of
electricity and some minimal wear on the machine being used, but considering
the high rate of depreciation of computer equipment, this can hardly be
considered a loss. Furthermore, any computer connected to the Internet  allows
outsiders to use it to search for and distribute information.

I suspect that the main reason that the establishment fears hackers is that
hackers assume the role of someone else - that they present themselves as
system operators or other authorized users, and enjoy the privileges
associated with their assumed status. The worst part is that they seem to be
able to do this with ease, thus publicly embarrassing the computer experts
that the corporations pay dearly for. This tends to be aggravating, especially
since the business world in general and (to an even higher degree) the
corporate world depend on a system of fundamental status symbols, where every
person is at the top of their own little hierarchy. To act like someone or
something that you are not is considered a cardinal sin (remember Refaat
El-Sayed's fake doctoral degree!) ( translator's note : In the 80's, Refaat
El-Sayed was the CEO of Fermenta, a large Swedish pharmaceutical company, who
was ousted following a scandal involving purchased credentials).

The condemnation of hackers is disproportionate to their criminal acts, and
sentences are way too severe. This is grounded in an almost paranoid fear of
what the hacker accomplishes, and the code of ethics that he or she subscribes
to. The hacker is (like most people)  definitely  not evil by nature, nor a
hardened criminal, but an individual that listens to his/her own heart. The
hacker is not a psychopath, nor interested in hurting or stealing from other
people in a traditional sense. Possibly, the hacker wants to steal secrets,
which frightens many. Later, we will go deeper into hacker ethics and
ideology.

Swedish network hackers appeared at a later stage than the ones in the U.S.,
partially because of Televerket's ( translator's note : Televerket was the
government authority that later became Telia - the name literally translates
into "The Telephone Service") monopoly on the modems that are needed to
connect to a computer across the phone networks. The first case that I know of
happened in 1980, when a student at Chalmers School of Technology (at
Gothenburg University) was fined for manipulating the billing system at
Gothenburg's computer center in order to use the system for free. The first
case to attract media attention occurred when a journalist from  Aftonbladet
(a major Swedish daily),  Lars Ohlson , hired a couple of 17-year-olds, a few
modems, and a few computers, and tried to break into Stockholm's  QZ  computer
center (after seeing the movie  War Games)  . The QZ operators noticed what
they were doing, which led to Ohlson's arrest and subsequent fining, under
loud protests from (among others)  Dagens Nyheter  (one of Sweden's largest,
oldest, and most respected newspapers). The three never succeeded in breaking
into QZ, and the original purpose had been to test its security, which turned
out to be very good... in 1983.

In the first 1984 issue of the paper  Allt om Hemdatorer  ("All About Personal
Computers"), there was a report of a considerably more successful intrusion
attempt. With the help of an imported Apple II, two youths (17 and 19 years
old, respectively) managed to get into  DAFA-Spar , the government's
individual address database. Even though the information contained in the
database was far from classified, it is easy to imagine the consequences if,
for example, a foreign power could retrieve information about every Swedish
citizen. DAFA-Spar themselves were surprised and shocked by the incident. The
youths, inspired by  War Games , had also succeeded in entering Gothenburg's
Computer Center, Medicin-Data and the computers at Livsmedelsverket (the
Swedish equivalent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) The hackers
claimed to have performed the break-ins to point out security deficiencies.

Like their American counterparts, most Swedish network hackers seem to have
worked alone, i.e., without forming groups. Reportedly, many of the first
Swedish hackers were inspired by the BBS  Tungelstamonitorn , which was run on
an ABC806 computer by  Jan-Inge Flücht  in Haninge (a Stockholm suburb) in
1986-87. The BBS later changed its name to  Jinges TCL  and became known as
one of the most outspoken and insolent Swedish boards through the amateur
network Fidonet. In 1987,  SHA  (the   Swedish Hackers Association ) was
formed, which (curiously enough) is most famous for irritating freelance
journalist and security consultant  Mikael Winterkvist , after he attempted to
chart the transmission of computer viruses in Sweden.

The SHA itself claimed to be Sweden's largest and most well-organized hackers
group. Others see them as boastful people from Stockholm with a strong need
for self-assertion, which is a rather empty sentiment considering that nearly
all underground hackers have an enormous need to assert themselves (
translator's note:  and people from Stockholm are often considered to be
boastful and arrogant by other Swedes  not  from Stockholm). One of their most
successful hacks involved an SHA member gaining access to Swedish Radio's
computers, and becoming so familiar with the system that he could change the
programming schedules at will. Just for fun, he changed Pontus Enhörning's (a
famous Swedish radio personality) password and emailed him to tell him about
it, which generated some publicity.

SHA succeeded, during its heydays, in entering several computer systems around
Sweden: among others,  SICS, KTH/NADA, ASEA, Dimension AB, S-E Banken, SMHI,
OPIAB, DATEMA,  and - last but not least -  FOA  ( translator's note:  FOA
stands for Försvarets Forskningsanstalt, or Sweden's Defense Research
Facility). None of the victimized companies or authorities have shown any
great desire to talk about the intrusions. Swedish security experts shrug and
sigh when SHA is mentioned. The police, as well as many companies' own
security teams, know exactly who the SHA is, but they can't prove anything.
Mostly, the SHA is given free reins, since the authorities feel that they have
the group "under control". They're not afraid of the SHA, and they have no
reason to be, since the group consists of relatively benign hackers who are
not out to destroy or corrupt anything. For the most part, all that they want
is some system time and open telephone lines. If you shut them out, they
respect it, but if you act in an arrogant and authoritarian manner toward the
SHA, they tend to get pissed off and threaten with horrendous retaliation.

Sweden has also been subject to hacker attacks from abroad. Perhaps the most
well-known incident occurred when a couple of UK hackers,  Neil Woods  and
Karl Strickland  (known under pseudonyms as  PAD  and  Gandalf , collectively
as  8LGM , which stood for  8 Little Green Men  or  the 8-Legged Groove
Machine ), broke into the Swedish Datapak and Decnet networks during Christmas
of 1990. Using a computer program, they searched through 22,000 subscribers
looking for computers to access, and established contact in 380 cases. The two
20-year-olds were sentenced to six months imprisonment on the 4th of June,
1993, for computer violations in fifteen countries (they were the first to be
sentenced under the new UK computer security regulations). Before one passes
judgment on Pad and Gandalf, one should know that they were the ones that
hacked into one of the EU's computers and helped expose  Jacques Delors ' (a
French EU representative) exorbitant expense accounts.

Virus Hackers
-------------

Computer viruses are constantly a hot item. This exciting area is still fertile
ground for publicity in magazines and periodicals. The  Michelangelo  virus,
discovered around March 6, 1992, attracted lots of attention. The virus was
believed to cause great damage to data and computers around the world. These
fears turned out to be greatly exaggerated; basically, the virus didn't do
anything. This was taken to indicate that media warnings had been effective,
and the theory, so to speak, proved itself. The question is whether the
Michelangelo virus ever constituted a threat.

Computer viruses are small programs, and like all other programs, they are
created by people. Hackers who engage in virus programming are made out to be
the worst villains among hackers, and are thought to only be interested in
screwing things up for other people. At the time of this writing, legislation
is underway that would make the manufacture as well as distribution of
computer viruses a criminal offense. The first modern viruses (such as the
Michelangelo virus), the  link  and  boot viruses , surfaced in the beginning
of the 80's. Many of the first ones came from  Bulgaria  of all places, and it
was in this country that the first BBS dedicated only to virus exchange and
discussion appeared: the  Virus Exchange . Supposedly, the reason for
Bulgaria's central position in the virus industry was that the East Bloc,
during some phase of the Cold War, decided to manufacture viruses for
electronic warfare. Bulgaria is known for its high-class computer scientists,
and so it was a natural choice for construction of these "weapons". Thus, many
Bulgarian students came into contact with government-financed virus
programming and later continued to develop viruses as a hobby. The most
prominent of these students is  Dark Avenger , who has attained cult status
among today's virus hackers.

Individual link and boot viruses possess different attributes, but share the
ability to  propagate  efficiently. Most are written by hackers, and not all
viruses are destructive. Computer viruses have been classified as electronic
life by researchers as prominent as  Stephen B. Hawking . If so, then it is
the first life form to be created by humans. Some virus hackers are just
regular hobby hackers who have developed an interest in viruses, while others
are network hackers. The electronic magazine  40hex  (named after an MS-DOS
function) is a forum for American virus builders, and primarily provides code
for virus programs and explores virus techniques, but also reports on
political and economic aspects of viruses. The magazine is published by the
virus hacker groups  Phalcon  and  SKISM  (Smart Kids Into Sick Methods).
(Notice the pun?).

It's a shame to say that virus builders are only concerned with destruction.
Mostly, it is just another manifestation of the  graffiti phenomenon , which
is a desire to see one's name on as many screens as possible, and to read in
the papers about the effects of the virus one wrote. It's a question of
becoming someone. In addition, constructing a virus is an intellectual
challenge that requires a relatively high degree of programming knowledge. The
virus hackers are probably the most intellectual hackers next to the
university hackers. In the case of destructive viruses, it is usually a
manifestation of the phreakers' old yippie attitudes. The virus hacker is the
fascinating person produced when you cross a yippie anarchist with a
disciplined programmer. A related fact is that viruses are exclusively written
in assembly language, which is the hardest and most complicated programming
language to learn. No virus hacker that I've heard of has ever made money from
making a virus.

The virus hackers have a sort of love-hate relationship to  John McAfee  and
his company, which makes the virus-removing program  VirusScan . Before he
started working on computer viruses, he supported himself by selling
membership cards for an association which simply guaranteed their members to
be AIDS-free, so it is fair to say that he has had experience with viruses. It
has been implied that his company supports virus production, since it is vital
to its continued existence that new viruses or new versions of viruses are
constantly appearing. The company's main source of income comes from  program
updates , i.e. selling new versions of the software that can neutralize and
protect against the newest viruses. McAfee worked under a similar system
selling AIDS-certificates. He was accused of bolstering the public fear of the
Michelangelo virus in 1992.

Computer viruses can also be considered an art form. A virus is a computer
program just like any other, and according to copyright laws, every creative
computer program contains an artistic element. It is obvious that the creation
of a virus requires determination, effort, and imagination. Imagine that while
systems analysts and administrators are breaking their backs to get their
systems to work in an orderly and coordinated fashion, there are little
hoodlums out there trying to accomplish the  exact opposite , i.e. chaos,
disorder, and ruin. It doesn't take a lot of inside knowledge to see the humor
in the situation. The virus builders are taunting the nearly pathological
fixation on order within corporations and governmental agencies. It can very
well be viewed as a protest against a nearly  fascistic  desire for control,
order, and structure.

"To some, we are demons; to others, angels...
.. Blessed is the one who expects nothing, for he will not be disappointed."

(Excerpt from the source code of the virus  Dark Avenger, by the Bulgarian
virus hacker of the same name. Translator's note: one does notice a mere whiff
of inspiration from Hellraiser...).

The most notorious Swedish virus hacker is known as  Tormentor . In 1992, he
formed a loosely connected network of Swedish virus hackers by the name
Demoralized Youth . Tormentor belonged to the relatively small group of
hackers that became interested in virus building, and established contact with
similarly interested Swedish youths. Among others, he got to know a
13-year-old who had collected over a hundred viruses, and downloaded new ones
from the Bulgarian  Virus Exchange  BBS. During the late fall of that year,
Tormentor distributed a virus of his own creation to different BBS's in
Gothenburg, and could observe it spreading like a wave across Sweden. Intense
Fidonet discussions ensued.

Someone discovered an "antidote" to Tormentor's virus, and he modified it and
distributed it again, only to have it trounced by another anti-virus
technique. This process was repeated five times before Tormentor got sick of
constantly updating and distributing the virus. Afterwards, Tormentor
concluded that the virus contained several errors. To start with, he had only
tested it against McAfee's VirusScan; additionally, it was afflicted by
several programming errors, and - worst of all - it was  not  destructive!
Those are the words of a true anarchist. Tormentor embodies the virus hacker
in a nutshell, and he is probably an eternal Swedish legend in the field. He
was in contact with the SHA from the beginning, and is still involved in a
feud with Mikael Winterkvist at the company Computer Security Center/Virus
Help Center.

Among other well-known viruses we also find the so-called  Trojan Horse  AIDS
(Trojan horses are viruses that  infiltrate  remote computers or networks).
AIDS was a program that was distributed free-of-charge to companies across the
world, following an international AIDS conference in London, and it purports
to contain information about AIDS. When the program is run, it locks up the
computer's hard drive and the user is prompted to deposit a certain amount in
a an account in Panama (talk about electronic extortion). However, this virus
has nothing to do with hackers; it was created by a man named  Joseph Papp ,
who was not considered mentally fit to stand trial.

Another famous virus is  RTM , a.k.a.  The Internet Worm . This was a  worm
virus , which copied itself across computer networks. The program was written
by the student and hacker  Robert Tappan Morris  (hence the name 'RTM'), and
his idea was to write a program that traversed the Internet on its own,
finding out how many systems it could get into. It was then supposed to report
back to its author with a list of its destinations. Unfortunately, Morris had
made a programming error which caused an overload of the entire Internet. For
this little trick, he was sentenced to fines and probation. The worm virus
idea originated at the Xerox Research Center in Palo Alto, California, where
they were used to maximize the use of machine resources (for example, by
having some programs run only at night, when no one else was using the
computers).

Cable and Satellite Hackers
---------------------------

It is uncertain whether satellite and cable hackers should be referred to as
hackers, and it is even more uncertain whether I have the right to call
them "illegal hackers". First, what these hackers do is seldom illegal.
Second, they are closer to radio amateurs and electronics freaks than computer
users. On the other hand, phreakers and computer constructors are often
considered to be hackers, and furthermore, neither radio amateurs nor
electronics hobbyists want anything to do with them. Plus, they also subscribe
to the fundamental hacker principle that holds that information should be
free... so I guess they're hackers.

If you flip to the last pages of an evening newspaper, right after the sports
pages, where you find all the ads for porno movies and Rogaine, you will also
find ads offering cable TV decoder kits. These kits are built by this type of
hacker. The entire Swedish branch of this underground operation can be traced
to the close-knit circle of Rolig Teknik (which was mentioned earlier)
readers. It is hardly possible to find a decoder builder that has  not  read
Rolig Teknik.

The absolutely most famous hack that has been performed by this kind of hacker
was witnessed by HBO viewers on April 27, 1987. In the middle of the movie
The Falcon And The Snowman , the broadcast was interrupted by a blank screen
on which the following text appeared:  "Good Evening HBO from Captain
Midnight. $12.95 a month? No Way! (Showtime/Movie Channel, Beware!)".

The basis for this message was HBO's plans to encrypt their broadcasts so that
whoever wanted to see their programs would have to purchase a decoder.
Captain Midnight , whose real name turned out to be  John MacDougall , had
interrupted HBO's broadcast by reprogramming the satellite that transmitted on
that channel.

The transmission was interesting because it showed how vulnerable the
technological society is. What if Captain Midnight had instead decided to
alter the satellite's trajectory, and thus sabotaged millions of dollars worth
of equipment? Perhaps worst of all, the hacker penetrated every television
viewers consciousness and distributed the unequivocal political message which
stated that TV, as a form of information, shouldn't cost anything.

On this subject, I would also like to mention some other electronics hackers
like the Uppsala-based Atari enthusiast by the name of  Marvin  (an assumed
name), who together with some friends constructed their own telephone
cards - "eternal" cards that never ran out.... After a lengthy process, these
Uppsala hackers were given suspended sentences and fines, while Telia never
received a cent in reimbursement (which was partially due to the fact that
Telia itself had made orders for these cards, as they were mighty curious
about the invention). Many engineering students across Sweden became so
impressed by Marvin's cards that they made copies, and soon there was a
considerably greater number of copies than originals. Marvin himself never
manufactured very many cards. Mainly he wanted to prove that it was possible,
since Telia had boasted of the superior security features of these cards.

A similar case involved the Amiga hacker  Wolf , a resident of Helsingborg
(located in southern Sweden), who managed to acquire a card reader of the type
that was used for public transit (bus) cards. Wolf was an unusually crafty
young man, who was familiar with all types of electronic equipment, and also
very mechanically talented. He had a two-year gymnasium degree ( translator's
note: in Sweden, like many other European countries, the gymnasium offers an
intermediate level of schooling somewhere between High School and university,
and in some cases offers degrees)  in electronics and telecommunications, but
he was more dedicated than most university engineers. He had already had a
run-in with the justice system for moonshining. Without any major difficulty,
he managed to hook up the card reader to his Amiga and write a program that
could control it. Initially, he probably only wanted to test the system to see
if he could program the cards himself, but as time passed it turned into an
enterprise. Eventually, it became an operation in which hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of cards were forged. Due to a solid and secure database system,
the regional transit authority was able to trace and block the forged cards.
During a search of Wolf's residence, authorities found (among other things)
Marvin's extensive description of Telia's phone cards.

The need for proper legislation for these types of crimes is pressing. There
are operations that border the illegal, but that cannot be outright
criminalized. It is  not  illegal to own a card reader or to manufacture fake
cards. Electronic "identity documents", such as phone cards or decoders, are
not considered identity documents by virtue of the fact that they are
electronic, and therefore it is not illegal to possess them. Swedish
legislation has simply not yet been adapted to electronic documents. However,
using  fake documents is clearly illegal. Only commercial manufacture and
sales of pirate decoders is illegal - not private possession or distribution.
Presumably, legislation has been limited so as not to infringe upon the
freedoms of radio amateurs, which means that mail-order kits or other tools
for amateur use are permitted. It would be totally legal to put up ads for
phone card kits, just as decoder kits are being sold.

The solution to this controversy is, of course, not prohibition, but building
systems that are so safe that they cannot be penetrated even if the attacker
knows  everything  about their inner workings, which is possible through
crypto-technology. The question is whether this solution is really that good.
In a society that is based on electronic currency, this would serve to prevent
all  types of fraud and forgery. I will return to this subject in a later
section.

Anarchists
----------

The "hackers" that call themselves anarchists are hardly hackers in the
traditional sense. Neither are they anarchists. More accurately, they're
teenagers with a general interest in bombs, poisons, weapons, and drugs. Since
relevant information cannot be found in most libraries, these teenagers find
their way to that electronic computer culture in which all information is
cross-distributed to other youths who do not themselves have children, and
therefore do not feel any sort of responsibility for the information being
distributed. For obvious reasons, the youths see themselves as equals, and
consider the whole thing a rebellion against adult values and norms. Childish?
Perhaps. As a protest against Big Brotherism, it can hardly be considered
childish. In any case, there are plenty of adult "anarchists".

Anarchists distinguish themselves by distributing blueprints for weapons and
bombs, drug recipes, and instructions on how to efficiently kill another
person, etc., with inexhaustible interest. Some hackers become angry when they
find their BBS's swamped with such material (which is often totally erroneous,
dangerous, and useless); others let the anarchists carry on. The most
controversial anarchist publication in Sweden is  The Terrorist's Handbook 6 .
Much of the information in the book has to do with basic pyrotechnics, and has
nothing to do with terrorism (sometimes I wonder if one of my student
neighbors has developed an obsession with this book, as he with inexhaustible
energy detonates home-built fireworks every evening. Apparently, many
chemistry students have learned a lot about pyrotechnics by studying this type
of material).

Some people seem to collect similar blueprints and books in the same manner
that others collect rocks or stamps. It is only recently that so-called
ASCII-traders  (ASCII stands for American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, which is really a method of coding text) have surfaced; these
people are information collectors who dial into different BBS's and look for
exciting and somewhat  suspicious  information. Don't ask me why they do this.
Collecting non-living objects is something that one engages in for no reason
whatsoever. The digital information collector's obsession is obviously as
strong as that of a collector of physical items.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alias Publications is one of the publishers that have offered to print this
book. The editor-in-chief, Mikael Borg, wanted me to write more about Alias in
this book, which I can understand. Alias is an excellent magazine for those
who are interested in this type of material, but who don't have access to
BBS's and the Internet, or the energy to dig out the electronic documents that
describe hacking techniques. Alias has a shortage of good contributing
writers, but they do the best they can, and the paper is interesting to read.
Wicked voices claim that Alias is just out to make a quick buck, but as far as
I can tell, this claim is not true. Most of the material seems to be
thoroughly edited, and the design is far above underground standards.

Update : At present, Alias Publications has ceased doing business, and Mikael
Borg has gone underground by moving to Thailand.

2. After writing this, one of my articles was accepted by Phrack (see Phrack
#48, article 17): a historical summary of Swedish hacking culture, based on
the research I did for this book.

3. The current method is manufacturing your own home-made cards that the new
public phones accept as real credit cards.

4. An experienced hacker will instantly note that I've chosen a totally boring
system: the AS-400.

5. Security experts constantly emphasize that there  are  destructive hackers
out there. Remember that this threatening image provides the reason for their
existence.

6. Pay attention to our definition of "anarchist" (see the first paragraph). Do
not confuse hacker-anarchists with political anarchists. The Terrorist's
Handbook was published in Sweden by a company that also published quite a bit
of Nazi propaganda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Chapter 5: SUBCULTURE OF THE SUBCULTURES
----------------------------------------

The phenomenon that started at MIT, becoming global through personal computers
and networks, has reached us in a subtle way. It is hard to recognize it as
the same thing that drove American youth to spend their days and nights
hacking. Few parents had any idea that their sons (and in some cases,
daughters) could be influenced by a culture rooted in American universities
simply by spending a few hours in front of a computer screen. The screen in
question would be hooked up to a  Commodore 64, for (in Sweden) it is with
this machine that it all began.

The high-tech ( 1984) C64 had gone into full bloom; hundreds of thousands of
youngsters in Europe, the U.S., and Australia sat hunched over their
breadbox-looking machine, fascinated by its possibilities. The C64, like the
Apple II and Atari 800, was built around MOS's 6502 microprocessor (which is
still in use, including in Nintendo's entertainment system), and therefore
many Apple and Atari owners saw the transition to C64 as a natural
progression. At first, most programs (primarily games) for the C64 were quite
primitive, with poor graphics and sound reminiscent of those produced by a PC
internal speaker - that is, beeps and screeches. At some point, however, the
market broke through a magic barrier and so many C64's were sold that it
became profitable to start companies producing software solely for this
computer. This had occurred with the Apple II and Atari in the U.S., but since
the C64 was first real European home computer, these companies were completely
new phenomena on the east side of the Atlantic. The first companies started in
the UK, which was the country that had first started importing the C64, and
which became the leading edge for European computer culture.

It was the games, with their (for the time) advanced graphics and sound, that
would be copied and distributed through the so-called Scene. The Scene, a kind
of virtual society, started in the U.S. around 1979, when Apple II and Atari
games were hot stuff. The software companies were angry, and called the
Sceners pirates and criminals. Pirate BBSs for personal computers (usually
consisting of an Apple II and the program  ASCII Express Professional ) had
mushroomed and mixed their own values and electronic magazines into the
underground hacker/phreaker movement. The most notorious BBS  was Pirate's
Harbour , which had such prominent users as the well-known crackers  Mr. Xerox
and  Krakowicz .

Just before the C64's arrival in Sweden, and parallel with The ABC Club growing
into a representative and presentable computer club, a small and tight group
of Apple II enthusiasts had created an underground network. This network
included  Captain Kidd ,  Mr. Big ,  Mr. Sweden ,  TAD ,  TMC  (The Mad
Computerfreak), and others. Since there was no Swedish market for Apple II
software, the group had imported games to crack and share. They even had
contact with the infamous American Apple II underground and its BBSs. Most of
the group's members advanced to a C64, and it was through them that the
Swedish Scene originated. (1)

The concept of a "scene" is the same as in a theater or music stage. A scene is
the location of a performance, where the purpose is to show off one's
abilities, not to make money or dominate other people. Scenes (or stages) are
found in almost all cultural spheres, and, fascinatingly, also in
techno-cultural ones such as those of radio amateurs, model airplane
hobbyists, and hackers. What separates the personal computer scene from other
scenes is that it ran against commercial interests, and therefore it came to
be considered a dangerous and criminal subculture.

The  Scene  (capital S) is thus a label for the large group of users that
exchange programs (primarily games) and also so-called demos. The thinking was
straightforward: why buy a game for 25 bucks if I can copy it for free from my
neighbor? This practice was, of course, illegal (which most people realized);
however, it was a crime comparable to copying the neighbor's records to a
cassette tape, with the exception that the copy did not suffer a loss of
quality and could be infinitely reproduced. A copy of a copy of a copy would
be identical to the original.

The Swedish prosecuting pioneer  Christer Ström  (from Kristianstad) and his
colleagues around the world have, to an extent, been successful in curbing the
commercial mass-distribution of pirated copies. However, private distribution
is still alive and well, even though it is currently somewhat hampered by the
fact that modern games are usually delivered on CD-ROMs, and not very easy to
copy (if they are copied, they usually have to be transferred to around 50
diskettes, which makes the practice rather unwieldy and expensive). One buys
the original rather than spending hours copying it (2) (more on this subject
will follow later).

Starting January 1, 1993, all reproduction and distribution of copyrighted
software (even to friends) is against Swedish law, although no individual has
been sentenced for giving copies of programs to his/her friends. The crime is,
as previously stated, comparable to copying records or videos, or not using
your turn signal when making a turn. You can relax as long as you don't
mass-distribute pirated software. Perhaps I shouldn't have said that - it is a
terribly politically incorrect statement.

Anyway, back to 1984. The people that removed the (often virtually nonexistent)
copy protection from the games, the so-called crackers, came up with the
excellent idea of displaying their name or pseudonym (handle) on the start-up
screen of a cracked program. The phenomenon is, together with many other
phenomena in the hacking world, related to graffiti. If we take into account
that such a copy could reach tens of thousands of people (many more than would
read something sprayed on a concrete wall), it is not hard to understand how
the practice became so popular. Hackers with handles such as  Mr. Z , TMC (The
Mercenary Hacker),  WASP  (We Against Software Protection),  Radwar ,  Dynamic
Duo , or  CCS  (Computerbrains Cracking Service) figured heavily on screens
everywhere. Sometimes individual hackers hid behind these pseudonyms,
sometimes loosely connected groups. In the U.S., there were already firmly
established and well-organized cracking groups, but in Sweden and Europe, the
phenomenon was completely new. The underground hacker movement started to grow
from scratch, especially in the larger cities, where there were plenty of
hackers that would meet at different computer clubs and exchange knowledge and
programs.

The personal computer had incredible penetration as a medium, and several
hacker groups soon formed, spending all their time removing copy protections
from games, and then compressing and distributing the products (known as wares
or warez). Among the first groups was the American  Elite Circle , which had
its roots in both phreaker and hacker culture, and had already managed pirate
BBSs for Apple II and Atari software. The notion of cracking and distributing
games came from the USA, where it had started with an Apple II program called
Locksmith . It could remove copy protections from programs using certain
parameters. In the beginning, it was enough to simply change the parameters
for this program to crack a piece of software, but later it became necessary
to spend more work on the actual cracking, and the cracker him/herself would
have to be a programmer.

The hackers cracked programs because they were pissed off at the software
companies for putting in copy protection routines that prevented them from
looking around inside the programs and copying them for their friends. They
wanted information to be free. This was the true reason, even though many gave
justifications such as "The programs are too expensive, I only copy programs I
couldn't afford to buy anyway, I want to test it before I buy it", etc., which
were only partially true. The fundamental belief was that information was not
property, and that they did not want to be part of any software industry.

One of the first programs to be pirated, and perhaps the first ever, was
Altair BASIC . It was delivered on a punch card for the computer with the same
name. BASIC stands for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, and
Altair BASIC was written by none less than Bill Gates himself. Behind the
reproduction was one of the members of  Homebrew Computer Club  in Silicon
Valley, a hacker ( Dan Sokol ) who would later be known as  Nightstalker . He
wrote a program that copied the punch card pattern and thus became the world's
first cracker. The 19-year-old Gates was up in arms: he wrote an angry letter
to the user groups in which he claimed that copying a program was theft and
would ruin the industry. Most thought little Bill was an idiot; no one had
ever tried to sell computer programs before, and the norm was for everyone to
share everything. For the large computer systems, the software came with the
machine, and nobody really cared if it was copied. With personal computers
came software piracy, simply because there were software companies that wanted
to profit from this new hobby. The hobbyists themselves never asked for any
software companies.

Here, it is necessary to make a crucial distinction: hackers distinguish
between regular distribution of a program to friends and the activities of
pirates. Pirates are not friends but people who try to profit from reproducing
and distributing software. Pirates are parasites that prey on personal
computer users, who just want software, as well as the computer industry in
general. Both hackers and members of the software industry think that pirates
are scum. The software companies hate them for stealing their income, and
hackers hate them because they try create a new dependency relationship that
is no better than the old one. Hackers, in general, firmly believe that
copying should be done on a friendly basis and for free. Only in a few
exceptional cases have hackers cooperated with pirates to get original games
(nowadays known under the more cryptic term "licenses") for cracking purposes.
Sweden's greatest pirate of all time,  Jerker  (fictitious name), was a
retired father of two, in his forties, and hated by the industry as well as
the hackers (with the possible exception of the  Xakk  group, which depended
on him for their originals). Rumor has it that he's not given up piracy, and
still makes his living selling illegal copies. Jerker says that he is not
really interested in computers, and it seems to be true. Personally, I think
that he has a considerably greater interest in money.

The Scene in 1986: as hackers developed their programming expertise, the
introductory screens displayed at the beginning of cracked games became more
advanced and grew into several dimensions. Hackers were inspired by title
screens and sequences from games, and the introductory screens went from
comprising mainly vertically scrolling text to advanced graphics with
animation, sound, and sophisticated technical tricks that made the show more
cool. A new art form, the  Intro , was born, and it was practiced solely by
programmers. Although the art of demo writing had existed (in a simple form)
in the time of the Apple II, the C64 and its advanced technology permitted it
to bloom. Groups like  Eagle Soft ,  Hotline ,  Comics Group ,  FAC
(Federation Against Copyright),  Triad , and  Fairlight  flooded the Scene in
the last half of the 80's.

Some of these groups started their own BBS's where ideas were exchanged and
programs distributed. The word  elite  was adopted as a term for the groups
that were the most productive and had the most distribution channels
(especially to the USA). The European part of the Scene had an obsession with
distributing their cracked games to the United States as quickly as possible.
It was probably due to a form of "sibling rivalry", since the Scene itself
started with the American Apple II computers, and the most experienced hackers
were from the U.S. It was important to impress "big brother" with your cracked
games. In the European Scene, more ties to the USA meant higher elite status.

The demand for open communication channels led to the hackers attacking the
Internet (among other things), and cooperating with European and American
phreakers to open more channels to the West. The phreakers and network hackers
called these newcomers from the world of personal computing  Warez d00ds ,
since they were always bringing "wares" in the form of pirated or cracked
games. They referred to themselves as traders, or, more expressly, modem
traders, since they used modems to connect to different BBSs. At first it was
Americans skilled in the fine art of phreaking who contacted different
European cracking groups, and later the Europeans themselves started calling
the U.S., hacking Internet computers, etc.

Eventually, the Europeans' inferiority complex with respect to the "big brother
of the west" had the result that the European home computer hackers, in their
struggle to excel, developed programming and cracking skills totally superior
to their American counterparts. During 1987-88, American computer game
companies began adding copy protection to software exported to Europe, but not
to the games sold within the U.S. They feared the European cracking groups,
and Sweden in particular was considered an unusually dangerous country. The
computer gaming industry suggested that much of the pirated software that
circulated through the U.S. and Europe originated in Sweden, which is actually
true. Most of these games came from an imports store in Göteborg (Gothenburg),
which was visited once a week by a Swedish hacker who was
supposedly "reviewing" new games. Without the storekeepers' knowledge, he
copied the games and distributed them to various Swedish crackers.

It didn't take long for someone to come up with the idea of separating the
intros from the games, letting them stand for themselves; the intro would even
be allowed to occupy all of the computer's memory. This resulted in the birth
of demo programs (or  demos ), which were dedicated to graphical and musical
performances and extraordinary technical tricks. The first demos were
collections of musical themes from various games, usually accompanied by a
simple text screen. For the most part, it was the same groups that had
previously done cracking and intros that migrated to demo creation, but "pure"
demo groups also surfaced, such as  1001 Crew ,  The Judges ,  Scoop , and
Ash & Dave . A distinct jargon and theory of beauty developed, mainly through
the exchange of programs and knowledge on England's  Compunet , which was an
enormous conferencing system dedicated solely to personal computer fans.
Compunet became the hard core of the demo groups, but most of the software
exchange still took place through disk trading and BBSs. Later, and especially
during 1988, the underground magazine  Illegal  became a sort of cultural
nexus for this rapidly growing society.

Norms for telling the bad from the good evolved quickly, and the widespread
expression  lamer  was introduced as a term for people who didn't want to
program, and instead used presentation software to produce demos. Probably,
the term originates in skater slang. The word lamer spread far outside
hackers' circles, and soon applied to any computer-illiterate person. Many
similar slang terms have been derived from the Scene, but these relationships
are not expressed in the Jargon File; rather, the document serves to
perpetuate the negative view of subcultural hackers (to whom it invariably
refers to as warez d00ds). This view is both erroneous and prejudiced.

From an American perspective, it is understandable that the academic hackers
from MIT, Berkeley, Stanford etc. considered the personal computer hackers
amateurs of little value; in the U.S., virtually all teenagers with a personal
computer were exclusively interested in games. American demos and intros were
primitive, and nowhere near the level of sophistication of the European ones.
On the whole, the American part of the Scene had a less developed culture than
the European side. The American hackers were heavily influenced by the
phreaker culture, and as a result usually insolent and aggressive. The
feelings of contempt were mutual.

An unfortunate consequence of this animosity is that European hackers searching
for their identity are easily attracted by American hacker ideals, and thus
assume a slightly scornful attitude towards personal computer enthusiasts. It
is worth noting that the cultural foundation of European hackers consisted of
personal computer hobbyists, and not of phreakers, network hackers, or small
academic clubs at universities. The European hacker identity was built around
Commodore's and Atari's personal computers, and this is where the European
hacker should seek his/her roots. In addition, there are (of course) values
and traditions inherited from the American universities. However, one thing is
fairly certain: the European personal computer hackers developed the art of
computing in a way that never occurred in the U.S. The aggregate of European
teenage hackers created a beautiful and amateur-based art form of a kind that
MIT and Stanford never witnessed.

The Art Form of the Demo
------------------------

A demo is somewhat difficult to define; it really has to be experienced. Even
the first hackers at MIT created (around 1961) simple demos in the form of
small mathematical patterns that were displayed on a simple screen. These were
called  Tri-pos  or  Minskytron -patterns (after the professor of the same
name). The demos were beautiful, but lacked practical applications.

Sine curves, scrolling text, and mobile blocks of graphics coupled with music
constituted the first personal computer intros. As time has progressed, the
products have come to resemble motion pictures or corporate demonstrations,
known as  trackmos . The name is derived from the fact that new data has to be
loaded continuously from disk to keep the demo running (a disk is subdivided
into tracks, hence trackmo). Since MIT, demo programmers have had a passion
for weaving mathematical image patterns into their creations.

As the demos appeared, this new cultural expression began spreading from the
C64 to other computer platforms. First, it migrated to the Atari ST (1984)
with groups such as  TCB  (The Care Bears) and  Omega , and later (1986) to
the Commodore Amiga, where (among others)  Defjam ,  Top Swap ,  Northstar
and  TCC/Red Sector , and later  Skid Row  and  Paradox , became well-known.
In 1988-89, demos started to appear even for the IBM PC, from (among others)
the Swedish pioneers  TDT  (The Dream Team) and  Space Pigs . (The Macintosh
has, to my knowledge, never nurtured any significant demo activity, but this
may change as the Mac has become more of a "personal computer"). The transfer
of games, intros, and demos was completely dependent on a network of postal
mail and a great number of individuals and BBS's that called cross-nationally
and cross-continentally to distribute the programs. During the 80's, the demo
groups couldn't afford to connect to the Internet; only a few university
hackers had that opportunity, and most of the Commodore hackers were in
secondary school. Most of the university hackers were of the "old-fashioned"
kind, and completely ignored personal computers in favor of minicomputers
(which were the coolest things around in their opinion).

Since computer programs are often copied through several generations (copies
distributed and then copied and distributed.... etc.), they offer an
exceptional opportunity for the distribution of names and addresses to help
expand the trading market. Fairly quickly, the early hacking groups recruited
members whose only purpose was to copy and trade demos with others of similar
mind, primarily in order to spread their own group's creations. These members
were known as  swappers , and a diligent swapper could have around a hundred
contacts. Since it wasn't very economical to send dozens of letters a month,
many (to the chagrin of the postal service) started spraying liquid Band-Aid
on the postage stamps so that they would "last longer".

Pure swappers soon discovered that it was possible to trade merchandise other
than disks, and two new subcultures emerged: film-swappers and tape-swappers.
The former engaged in the exchange of videos of all types, although primarily
movies that were banned by some government, or that were exciting for some
other reason. The tape-swappers exchanged music cassettes.

Disk swaps among hackers have been extremely important as a contact surface for
these subcultures. The word disk-swapper is never used in writing by the
hackers, since the word (in its pure form) simply indicates the exchange of
disks. Film-swappers in particular are connected to the hacker culture, since
the breakthrough of the VCR coincided with the personal computer boom in the
mid-80's. Frequently, a swapper trades disks, cassettes, video tapes, or any
other media that can be duplicated. The difference between a swapper and a
regular pen-pal is that the content of the swap (the disk, cassette, or
whatever) is more important than anything else. If you don't feel like writing
a letter, you just send a disk labeled with your own name so that the
recipient will know who sent it. Disk swapping is, however, a phenomenon
associated with the European personal computer hackers of the 80's. For the
IBM PC of the 90's, this procedure is relatively uncommon - the standard
nowadays is to get the programs you want from a BBS or even the Internet.
Swapping has given way to trading, that is, the exchange of information has
gone from disks to modems.

In the beginning, hacker groups consisted of just programmers and swappers, or
individuals that were a combination of the two. The most successful groups of
this kind have always been those who enjoyed geographic proximity, enabling
their members to exchange ideas and knowledge without expensive and
troublesome telephone connections. After some time, a need for more
specialized hackers arose, and categories like musicians, graphics experts,
the previously mentioned crackers, and coders emerged. The difference between
a cracker and a coder was that the former specialized in removing copy
protection (i.e. modifying existing programs), while the latter was concerned
with pure programming (or coding).

To destroy copy protection routines is not illegal in itself (actually, you
pretty much have the right to do whatever you want to with a product that you
have purchased). On the other hand, widespread distribution of the "cracked"
program, which the swappers frequently engaged in, is highly illegal (although
I should point out that many of the swappers only traded demos, and stayed
away from distributing copyrighted software). However, we again run into the
similar act of copying music CD's, which is just as illegal. No law
enforcement agency in its right mind would ever get the urge to strike against
a hobby hacker who copied software for his or her friends, as long as it
wasn't not done in a commercial capacity. The crackers and traders did not
know this, which made the practice more exciting and "forbidden" (remember
that the average hacker was in his or her teens, and that it is very important
to rebel against society at that age).

In the U.S., there was another category of hackers called fixers. The fixers
modified the code generating the signals for European PAL television systems
to fit the American NTSC standard. (These hackers did not exist among the PC
hackers, because all PC's have their own video systems intended for monitors
rather than TVs). Some hackers also had suppliers, who acquired the original
programs that the crackers stripped of copy protection routines. It was not
unusual for these suppliers to work in software retail stores or even at
software companies.

For social reasons, so-called copy-parties were held, as early as 1984, at
which many hackers from different groups got together (in some city) to
interact and trade knowledge and experiences. Possibly, the hackers drew
inspiration from  The Whole Earth Catalog's  first hacker conference in that
year. The event is reminiscent of role-playing conventions in that it is a
rather narrow group of interested parties that gather, but it is different in
that the mood is rather tumultuous and unrestrained, more like a big party
than a regular convention. The term copy-party stems from the fact that a
great deal of copying took place at these parties, both legal and illegal.
Nowadays, salience has been reduced by calling the events demo-parties or
simply parties. A famous series of recurring copy- parties were held during
the 80's in the small Dutch town of Venlo. The Party (capital P) is probably
Europe's (or even the world's) largest and most frequented copy party. Since
1991, it is held annually during December 27-30 in Herning Messecenter,
Denmark, and attracted close to 2000 people in 1994.

Not even hackers always get along: confrontations between groups or individuals
often escalated into "gang wars", mostly involving psychological warfare. The
objective was to ostracize a person or group by refusing to exchange disks,
and encouraging friends to join in the boycott. In this manner, an individual
or a group could be "excommunicated" from the community. To reach this goal,
lengthy text files containing pointed truths or pure lies were distributed,
whereupon the accused retaliated using the same technique. The wars basically
never produced any tangible outcomes, and copy-party melees were extremely
rare. Conducting psychological warfare against other hackers should be
regarded as rather harmless, even though the participants were often fervently
committed to the battle. It should be assumed that these schisms taught
teenage hackers a great deal about the true nature of war: it rages for a
while, then dissipates, only to flare up elsewhere. Some leave the Scene (or
die in a real war), but most remain, and some day another disagreement occurs.

I would like to take the opportunity to mention that among the phreakers, these
wars ended much more quickly: you simply reported your enemy to the police.
This was the only way to practically interfere with a phreaker's life. Among
both the phreakers and hackers, however, friendship dominated over strife.
Through the occasional wars between hacker groups, yet another aspect of human
behavior was transferred to cyberspace. Abstractions of war as an advanced
chess game in the form of confrontations on the Scene as well as in many
different role-playing games, or tangibly as in the movie War Games, have
given many hackers a cynical view of human nature.

Those who are (and were) active on the Scene participate because they have a
relationship with the computer that is different from that of any previous
generation. Where one person only sees a box, a machine with a screen and
keyboard, the hobby hacker sees an entire world, filled with its own secrets
and social mores. It is these hidden secrets that spellbind and beckon the
hacker, and makes him or her forget everything else. The search for more
knowledge accelerates toward a critical mass, a sustained level of intensive
productivity. This is the state in which a hacker produces a demo in two weeks
or cracks one game per day. All social interaction outside the realm of the
computer and its users becomes insignificant.

Eventually, most reach a limit at which they grow weary of the Scene and the
eternal quest for something newer, bigger, and better. They simply quit. One
hacker that I know well once told me: "The only real way to quit is dragging
the computer to a swamp and dumping it". This serves to illustrate the
weariness following exaggerated participation on the Scene. Others keep their
hacking to moderate levels, and lead normal lives apart from their hobby.
These moderates tend to stay on the Scene the longest (personally I've been on
the Scene since 1986 and I remain there today, albeit as a somewhat
sporadically active member).

The Scene reveals a great deal about the true nature of hacking culture; it is
a roof under which to gather. Hacking is about the exploration of computers,
computer systems, and networks, but also an inquiry into the workings of
society, and the creation of new and personal things through experimenting
with subcultures. That is why hackers break into systems to which they are not
authorized, spray fixative on postage stamps, and blatantly disregard any form
of copyright. They want to explore and see how things work. Perhaps
subconsciously, they want to prepare for the future. The hacker culture
emphasizes exploration, not cold-blooded theft, and hackers are not egocentric
criminals that only seek destruction (3).

The actual motivation for real hackers is simply exploration, while someone who
hacks with theft or sabotage as a motive is a computer criminal and not a
hacker. Jörgen Nissens has written a fascinating thesis called Pojkarna Vid
Datorn (The Boys at the Computer), which makes it clear how special the hacker
culture surrounding personal computing really is. He has interviewed some of
the hackers in the groups Fairlight and TCB, and points out how strange it is
to hear members speaking of market shares of the Scene, and how the groups are
run under something similar to corporate principles, even though they lack a
profit motive. He also emphasizes that hackers behave more like bored
consumers than criminals or classical youth gangs; they are members of what
Douglas Coupland refers to as Generation X.

The personal computer groups are typical of Generation X. They abhor
politically correct messages, they run everything like a business, and they
are sick of the enormous market. Instead of consuming, they started producing.
Instead of manipulating money to achieve status and enjoy the admiration of
others, they have created a market where they trade creativity for admiration
without any material layers in between. No CD's, promotion tours, or marketing
schemes are necessary. There is only a need for pure information products in
the form of demos and cracked games, which are traded for pure information in
the form of respect and admiration.

The only subcultural hackers to receive any great media attention were those
who crossed the line to network hacking or phreaking and got busted. In 1989,
parts of the circle surrounding the demo group  Agile  were arrested after one
of their members,  Erik XIV  (fictitious name), went to the media and exposed
how vulnerable credit card transactions really were. At the same time, another
of their members,  Erlang  (also a fictitious name), ordered video editing
equipment for a quarter of a million crowns (about $35,000) to his own home
address using fake credit card numbers. Driven by their slightly elitist
attitude from the demo culture, they wanted to be alone in their mastery of
credit card technology, and tested the limits of what was possible using
artificial codes.

When the police arrested Erlang after he had ordered the editing equipment, he
started telling them everything with an almost pathological obsession with
detail. Phreakers and hackers often do this; it seems as if they believe the
police will be impressed by their feats. The people involved in the Agile case
were all given suspended sentences, high fines, and probation. All of them,
save Erlang, now work in the computer industry (surprise?).

Attitudes
---------

The first hackers at MIT always made use of all the technological resources
they could lay their hands on. It wasn't always the case that
the "authorities", the professors and custodians responsible for the
equipment, approved of this behavior. Most teachers thought that instruction
in computer science should be of the classical authoritarian kind, where the
professor stood at the lectern and lectured. If the students were to have
access to the computers it should be through explicit assignments to be turned
in for grading, not through the learning by doing that the hackers practiced.
They loved the computers, and couldn't for the life of them imagine why they
would be kept away from the machines. They sneaked in at night and used the
machines unbeknownst to the instructors.

After several personal confrontations with computer professors, and especially
after having worked as a computer instructor myself, I have realized that this
classical emphasis on utility is all too common among Swedish computer
teachers. It is simply not possible to get people to think that "computers are
fun" if you at the same time force them to adhere to rules for what they are
allowed and not allowed to do with the computer. Many computer instructors
throw a fit when they discover that the students have installed their own
programs on the computers, or have programmed something that wasn't the
subject of an assignment. Common reasons for this behavior are a paranoid fear
of viruses, the view that computer games are just a waste of time, and so on.
One teacher at my old gymnasium (secondary school), which we will call X,
installed a program on his computers which triggered a screeching alarm as
soon as someone tried to change any of the machines' configurations (the
machine configuration, in this case, is a couple of files with information
that allows the computer to use different accessories). Of course, an
exploring hacker will feel like changing the configurations, and the school's
own binary geniuses naturally ignored the large posters all over the computer
room proclaiming that this activity was absolutely prohibited. Central to this
story is the fact that the teacher was a foreign language instructor, who
could not under any circumstances accept that "his" computers would be used
for anything else than language programs, word processing, or other authorized
activities. Some students that triggered the alarm were banned from the
linguistics computer lab, while the more skillful students (who knew how to
change the configuration without setting off the alarm) were still permitted
in the computer room, despite having changed the configuration many times.

These students, who possessed some of the true hacker mentality that says that
you shouldn't accept a monopoly on knowledge or computing power, wrote an
amusing little program. Besides completely circumventing X's little security
system, the program also randomly displayed a requester, a small text window
which said: X IS A MORON. Below this text was an "OK"-button that had to be
pressed in order to proceed. The program was a classical hack: it wasn't very
useful, but it didn't do any real harm, and it was funny. The first hackers at
MIT would surely have appreciated this prank (personally, I find it
exquisite!). It was completely impossible for the teacher in question to find
and remove the program. In the end, he had to format all the hard drives on
the computers and reinstall all the software from scratch. To face the music
and ask the hacking students to remove the program, or even apologize to them,
never occurred to him. Doing this would not only mean recognizing the
students' right to use the computers, it would also mean confessing the
truth - that some of the students were more adept in computer science than
himself.

The fact is: the parents of these students had paid taxes to enable their
children to use computers at school. The students, like hackers in general,
were therefore of the opinion that the natural thing would be to let them use
the computers to do whatever they wanted, and as much as they wanted (outside
regular class hours, of course). This obvious right has been known since the
time of the MIT hackers as the hands-on imperative.

Computer instructors frequently do not understand hackers. They think that if
the hackers have to mess around with the computers all the time, why can't
they do something useful and authorized, such as figuring out a repayment
plan, or writing a summary of African history, or something along those lines?
The predominant attitude seems to be that the students should only use the
machines, not explore them, and definitely not hack them. The machine should
only be a tool, and the user should preferably know as little as possible
about the processes that take place behind the screen. The hacker is the one
who, in spite of these authoritarian attitudes, actually wants to know.

Hackers don't want to do "useful" things. They want to do fun things, like
exploring the computer's operating system, installing their own programs, and
trying out different technological features. This is what makes it fun to use
a computer. I have tried to mention this to several computer instructors of my
acquaintance, but alas, mostly with no results. I personally believe that this
kind of exploration is beneficial, and wouldn't for the life of me want to
prohibit students from engaging in it. It is the foundation for the enthusiasm
that makes some people think that "computers are so much fun". If a student,
after all, manages to screw up the computer, I consider it my responsibility
as a teacher to restore the machine to full functionality again. If I can't do
this, I'm incompetent. If I don't have time to do this, the school is
short-staffed. I have never had any significant problems with my own students;
in fact, I have invariably had positive experiences with them. The fact is
that I encourage my students to explore the operating system even if it is not
the subject matter of the course. If the computers I'm responsible for are
infected by viruses or crash, then it is my problem rather than the students'.

At MIT in 1960, the possibilities that opened up when students were allowed to
freely access the equipment were quickly discovered. Professor Marvin Minsky
would walk into the computer room, put down some electronic device and then
let the students try to develop a control program for it on their own. This
was not instruction - it was high-level research, and it was the students, the
hackers, that conducted it. If it hadn't been for this attitude towards
learning, computers would never have become what they are today. After MIT
became the first computer school in the world to allow the students unlimited
access to the computers, this new pedagogy spread to all universities that
were engaged in computer research, including the Swedish ones. No
self-respecting university today bans their students from the computer rooms.
They often have their own keys or keycards, and can come and go as they
please. The Swedish primary and secondary schools have a lot to learn from the
universities in this respect.

The fact is that the network hackers' mayhem in the university computers divide
the computer staff into two camps: those who fly off the handle when they
discover that someone has hacked their computer, and those who find it
interesting and exciting if someone hacks their computer. The latter group,
however, is not nearly as vocal as the first, which has led to the popular
view that all computer professors or information officers hate hackers. This
is far from the truth. The hacker is engaged in exploration. Not just of
single computers, but also of computer systems, computer networks, the
telephone network, or anything electronic. They condemn and/or ignore the
authority that wants to prevent them from exploring. They are not motivated by
theft. Period.

Mentality
---------

What keeps hackers going from a psychological perspective is a sensitive
subject. MIT's hackers could stay up and work a 30-hour shift, then crash for
about 12 hours, only to get up and complete another 30-hour shift. Sometimes,
hackers neglect everything but the computer, including nutrition, hygiene, and
normal social interaction. We see this as unhealthy, although we may accept it
among persons working on corporate boards, committees, or other professions
with a high degree of responsibility. It should be made clear that virtually
every hacker goes through such a period of intense concentration at some point
in his/her career, and it would be hasty to condemn such behavior in general.

In some cases, the computer is actually a means of escape from an intolerable
existence. A youth in the ages of 14 to 19 is subject to many harsh demands
from his or her environment. It is demanded that they should be able to handle
school, socialize with their friends, and (implicitly) connect with the
opposite sex. At the same time, one should not forget that hacking is often
conducted in a group environment, and it is based on a friendship that goes
far beyond the limited area of computing (For the uninitiated: friendship is
the phenomenon that makes someone get the idea of lending a room to someone
else for a few days, copy a computer program, share knowledge, etc., without
demanding payment).

The computer offers a convenient escape from the demands of growing up. In
earlier stages of history, many men (and some women) have distanced themselves
from difficult emotions by whole-heartedly dedicating themselves to some
science, and becoming so totally wrapped up in their research that
they "forget" their troublesome social "duties" such as friends, marriage, and
all that the entail. Computing, in our time, is a largely unexplored
territory. Everyone with access to a computer is instantly drawn into a world
in which much is strange and unknown, but which at the same time possesses an
underlying logic. A computer begs to be explored. In this way, the computer
can almost become a drug that replaces a more "natural" urge to explore social
behavior patterns. The excursions into the computer do not become a substitute
for sexual relations; it becomes something that you occupy yourself with so
you don't have to think about sexual relations. This is why so many
so-called "nerds" spend most of their time with computers. Society has given
them a thankless role from the beginning, and instead of playing along with
it, they escape it.

Many hackers are fully aware of this escape. At the same time, they see the
hard life, ruled by the laws of the jungle, lurking outside cyberspace, and
they finally make a conscious decision to either change everything or stay
where they are. Some old hackers have, through the years, developed an
incredible cynicism because of this. They condemn the real world and are
committed to creating a world in which they can rule for themselves, inside
the computers. They observe technological advances in virtual reality and
artificial intelligence with excitement, and tell themselves that  one day ...

If they could go into the computer forever, they would. They already hate
the "real" world in which they have to feel restrained by their physical or
social disabilities, and where their fate as losers has already been
determined. The human sexual identity consists of a social as well as physical
side, and if you lack one or the other, you're destined to be a loser. It
happens that hackers become aware of this, and instead say: "We don't want to
be part of it", and then retreat to cyberspace. There is nothing we can do
about this, except possibly tone down our social attitudes towards those who
are different, if even that would help. Maybe it is undesirable to have
hackers adjust to a "normal" life. Maybe we want them where they are, where
they feed their brains with so many practical problems that they don't have to
think about social dilemmas, so that we can keep track of them and keep them
under control. They are contained in a subculture where the weird is normal.
Their condition can, at worst, develop into mild or severe escapism, i. e.
escaping from reality. This condition is usually called computer sickness.

In addition, we can observe that illegal hackers possess a somewhat different
pattern of behavior compared to the subcultural hackers, depending on which
way they have entered the culture. Some phreakers come from an environment
consisting of party lines, amateur societies, etc. They are driven by a desire
to communicate, rather than exploration through the formation of groups and
internal competition. They are often considerably more arrogant and practice
phreaking simply because they are bored, and have nothing better to do (it's
the same motivational factor as for people who dial various party lines on
900-numbers). They don't take hacking to be a deadly serious business, and
often make fun of hackers, since deep down they think the hackers are complete
geeks.

Hackers, who would rather spend time with computers than with telephones,
generally identify with their group and possess more group loyalty. A pure
phreaker, of the kind I just discussed, would have no problem at all turning
his/her friends in to the police if he/she got busted, while a real hacker
would never turn in even his/her enemies.

Network hackers, as well as phreakers, virus hackers, and some crackers, suffer
from a hopelessly negative self-image. They see themselves as mean, cruel, and
dominant badasses. They have assumed a role in which they identify themselves
with a desire for destruction, hate of society, anarchism and general
mischief, mainly to feel a sense of belonging. For most, this is only a
temporary stage. If they have assumed yippie ideals, however, it is not
temporary.

The most dangerous hackers (from the perspective of society at large) are
invariably bitter. They consider themselves misunderstood and misjudged by the
educational system. They think that the schools have been unsuccessful in
harnessing their intelligence and talent, and consider themselves to have a
right to exact revenge on a society that shut them out of a world of
knowledge, simply because they didn't act the right way, and lacked the proper
social code. They have been forced into vocational schools by a grading system
that has been unable to distinguish them among those who are truly suited
towards higher education.

What makes matters worse is that they are right. With the hate of a society
that couldn't or wouldn't appreciate their qualities, they return with
computers and electronic equipment to saw through the pillars of the same
society's entire socioeconomic system, often with a nearly psychopathic lust
for destruction.

Carceres Ex Novum
"There was an alternative to normal life. I was sick of the normal, sick of
always being last. I found friends that I never had to meet face-to-face, and
so my teenage years passed, and I became an interesting person. When I started
at university the gigantic Internet came to my room, and the world  was beamed
to me. I had millions of people close by, without ever having to look them in
the face. I sat there all the time, only pausing to eat and go to class. I
didn't  meet anyone, no one knew me. And I was comfortable. Thanks to the
attention of the anonymous people on the other side of the screen, I did not
feel lonely. But time ran out, and the real world crept closer. Of course, I
knew I could run away forever, but I would never be able to hide from them,
the ones whose values transformed me into a lonely, asocial rat, who spent all
of his time with the computer. And I hated them."

Certainly some of the activities engaged in by hackers are illegal, and
certainly this is wrong from the viewpoint of society. Nevertheless, it would
be to severely underestimate hackers to say that they commit these acts in a
routine fashion, for "lack of something better to do", or for their own
profit. There has been too much judgment and too little understanding in the
hacker debate.

But now for something completely different.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I am here deeply indebted to Christer Ericson, who shared his knowledge of
the Apple II movement in Sweden; this information had hitherto not been
written down, and therefore difficult to retrieve.

2. Currently, even CD-ROMs are copied to a great extent. Especially MP3 (or
MPEG Layer 3), a system for sound compression, has become popular as it
provides a means for the mass distribution of music CDs (which I personally
believed to be pure fantasy until about a year ago). This compact music format
compresses a sound CD at a ratio of 1:12, and a normal pop song is transformed
into a 3-4 Mb file, which can easily be transferred across the Internet. In
five years, I'm sure videos will be distributed across the Net!

3. I'm sure you notice that I'm getting personal now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------
Chapter 6: THE BLEEP CULTURE
----------------------------

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines electronic music as
follows: "Music produced or altered by electronic means, as by a tape recorder
or synthesizer."

Electronic music has long existed as a subculture within "real music",
especially in Sweden. In 1948 (the same year that IBM started marketing the
first commercial computer) a certain Pierre Schaeffer created the first
electronic music composition, which he called Études aux Chemins de Fer
(Etudes for Trains). Electronic music was born in his studio for Musique
Concrète (Concrete Music) at Radio France. Concrete music is music that is not
limited to pure tones, and incorporates sounds from everyday life, such as
long, continually changing notes without tone quality, etc. In 1952-53, the
musician Karlheinz Stockhausen worked with Schaeffer, and brought some of
Schaeffer's ideas home to Germany. Since then, this form of music has spread
and is on the curriculum at different public institutions as a very small
branch of classical music. As opposed to Schaeffer, who preferred to work with
taped recordings of real sounds such as those of trains or birds, Stockhausen
focused on using only electronically created sounds. In Sweden, this music
form was basically unknown until it was introduced in Harry Martinsson's
science-fiction opera Aniara in 1959.

This chapter is not about classical electronic music - there are plenty of
texts on the subject. Furthermore, this book is aimed at regular people who
think that art should reflect something, i.e. that one should not constantly
try to break out of existing concepts and conceptual systems to appear as
incomprehensible as possible. Electronic music is a form in which the music
has to be interpreted on more levels than the musical. In other words: this
book will stick to a broader aspect of popular culture. This is not to say
that the art of electronic music is not interesting; it is just not
particularly interesting for the purpose of this book.

It is unnecessary to point out that the history of electronic music stretches
farther back than the history of hacker culture. However, the phenomenon of
electronic music has had a profound influence on hacker culture, and in its
pop-culture manifestation in the forms of synth-pop, techno, acid, house,
etc., it has played an important role for the generation that grew up with
computers. One of its main uses has been to display the beautiful side of the
computer. Electronic music was the first area in which computers were used to
create art, and as opposed to other forms of electronic culture, electronic
music has its roots in Europe.

The first time a computer played music was in 1957, at Bell Labs in the United
States. The song was called Daisy, which is the same piece that the
intelligent computer HAL (in Stanley Kubrick's film version of Arthur C.
Clarke's science fiction novel 2001) starts humming as it is being
disassembled. Naturally, this is not a coincidence, but rather the intention
of the director to return the computer to its "childhood state" (in a double
sense) as it loses its advanced electronic identity.

The world in the 70's and 80's: With the introduction of the first cheap
Japanese synthesizers, regular people (who were not trained musicians) started
using electronic instruments, and electronic pop music was born. The
difference between, for example, the Hammond organ or Pink Floyd's monophonic
synthesizers and the new generation of electronic instruments was that the
latter could store rhythms and entire pieces of songs in their digital memory,
which could later be modified. In particular, quantization (which adapts notes
played to a given rhythm) was (and is) greatly criticized by "serious"
musicians. They thought that simple and rhythmically perfect melodies were
destructive to music, and they distanced themselves from it. Another factor
that abhorred musicians of the old school was that music played by machines
would not be limited by the dexterity of a given musician, which allowed the
ability of the ear to perceive sound variations to set the limits for the
music. A "groove" of several hundred beats a minute, or pieces with tone
lengths of several hundredths of seconds - songs like those scare the living
daylights out of musicians who are accustomed to being able to analyze the
music they listen to.

For the new electronic musicians, the perfect quantization, the possibility of
a high pace, and synthetic "sound images" constituted a measure of beauty.
Among the pioneers, the most notable was the German band Kraftwerk, who built
their own synthesizers and should be considered classics of the genre.
Kraftwerk's importance for synth music can hardly be exaggerated. No single
group has had as much influence on electronic pop music as these futurists -
futurists in the sense that they saw the inherent beauty of the technology,
rather than a tool for reproducing other ideals. They made contact with the
previuosly named Karlehinz Stockhausen at an early stage, and drew lots of
ideas and inspiration from classical electronic music.

Kraftwerk, and in particular its member Ralf Hütter, are also extremely
politically aware and openly supports hackers. Sometimes, Ralf even refers to
himself as a hacker. The mentality of these German gentlemen has thus
influenced - and been influenced by - the digital underground culture around
the world. Chaos Computer Club member Pengo, who was previously mentioned in
connection with illegal hackers, was a Kraftwerk fan, and he listened to their
records over and over while breaking into computers around the globe. He was
not alone in this. Even though hackers in general have disparate musical
tastes, from Bach to death metal, there are few who do not enjoy electronic
music in some form or another.

While a "normal" educated musician perhaps sees the computer as a tool for
producing compositions, musical arrangements, and nice-looking sheet music, a
futuristic musician sees the computer as an instrument, something to be played
by its own right, and which - like a saxophone or a harp - possesses an inner
beauty. The futuristic musician can sit for hours and adjust different
parameters to extract personal sounds from the machine, and he/she loves it as
much as a guitarist loves to extrapolate his/her scales up and down in the
search for a greater personal touch.

While a "normal" musician creates his or her profile through finding new
techniques to manipulate his/her existing instrument, the electronic musician
works with numeric parameters, spectrum analyzers, and one-handed play. Some
don't know how to play an instrument at all, and stick to writing the music
note by note in something like a "musical word processor". The method may be
radically distinct from traditional music creation, but that doesn't mean that
electro-pop has less 'soul".

Peter Samson, as one of the very first hackers at MIT (yes, we're back there
again), had managed to get a PDP-1 computer to play Bach fugues solely based
on numerical input. His program could be said to be the first sequencer made
by an amateur. A sequencer is a computer program or a machine that remembers
the notes to be played, and allows the user to change the notes, replay them,
then store them again to replay them at some other time. Since that day, we
have enjoyed a living, machine-made music culture. Many musicians of the old
school react with outright xenophobia against this new way of working with
music, rather than enjoy its benefits and try to understand what the point is.

Among Swedish electro-pioneers there was Page (which is still an active band).
During the early 80's the group was one of the first (and for its genre, also
one of the most successful) so-called synth-pop groups. Many jumped on the
synth bandwagon, but have presently been forgotten. Who listens to groups like
Trans-X, Ultravox, or Texas Instruments today? Not many, even if there are
still quite a few synth-pop fans around the country. The genre has returned in
the form of groups such as S.P.O.C.K. or newcomers Children Within, which are
both very talented Swedish bands.

As a reaction against the frequently well-groomed and "nice" synth bands (read:
Howard Jones, Depeche Mode, etc.) that flourished in the mid-80's, there came
a new and incredibly heavy form of synth music: Electric Body Music, or simply
EBM. Mostly, it was just referred to as "raw synth". The English band Cabaret
Voltair had "invented" the style in 1978, but it was not until now that it
reached popularity on the Continent and in America. Among others, Portion
Control, Front 242 (who coined the term EBM), Skinny Puppy, and Invincible
Spirit joined the trend. One can compare the arrival of heavy synth music to
the introduction of grunge (personified by Nirvana) as a reaction to "poodle
rock" - there were simply too much corny stuff out there. Less successful was
perhaps the tendency of many heavy synth bands to flirt with nazi symbolism
and clothing, and many groups (including Front 242) had to make public
statements denying any connection to or support of neo-nazi movements.

In the 90's, many groups have grown weary of the EBM concept, since it started
to become a bit trite. For example, Ministry, Die Krupps, and the Swedish band
Pouppé Fabrikk had switched to Crossover, a type of music that mixes EBM and
different types of metal, often in the style of the trash-metal pioneers
Metallica.

Ambient
-------

In 1978, the former Roxy Music keyboard player Brian Eno released a record
named Music for Airports, using his own record company called Ambient. Ambient
is originally an esoteric form of artistic music. The underlying idea is to
produce a complete environment rather than just a musical "sound carpet" with
rhythms and ordered notes. Naturally, it is advantageous to create a sound
image from an unfamiliar and exciting environment if one is interested in
making quality, penetrating ambient music. A simple method for creating
ambient music is to just set up a couple of microphones in a steel mill, a
suburban apartment, or whatever environment you want to incorporate.

Eno supposedly got the idea for making such music after being hospitalized
following a car accident. He was confined to the bed with the stereo on,
unable to get up to either turn it off or turn up the volume. The silent
whisper of music combined with the sounds from the street below made him
realize that this was actually a real music style. Peripheral music - like the
music we listen to in supermarkets or airports - contains its own logic and
does not at all resemble "regular" music. Ambient music is music that should
be listened to while doing something else, concentrating on other sounds, yet
it should be subconsciously enjoyable. In psychology, the phenomenon is
classified as subliminal perception. The music creates a totality together
with external sounds and does not place requirements on the listener's
attention.

Eno didn't actually "invent" ambient music. The eccentric and ingenious
composer Erik Satie made a few less-appreciated attempts at
creating "furniture music" in the early 1900s, and in the 60's, the musical
artist John Cage wrote Four Minutes, Thirty-three Seconds, a piece for silent
piano, which is considered by many to be the ultimate ambient composition. The
point was that the listener should concentrate on the sounds in his or her
environment. To get the most out of the piece, one should perhaps read the
score. Cage also worked with electronic music, where he introduced ideas from
Zen philosophy about how the music should be organized but still display a
chaotic nature. These ideas have, served as a basis for the study of
improvisational techniques. They have also had a great influence on ambient
music, and this is mentioned on the covers of Brian Eno's records.

Together with installation art, this music form says a great deal about
ambitions within modern art: to create a total environment and place the
beholder inside it (1). The concept of Virtual Reality is considered to be the
optimal combination of installation art and ambient music. An artificial,
man-made environment of the type that writers for ages have been able to
create using the reader's imagination - but tangible, detailed, and accurate.
A world built on pure information.

Electronic music pioneers such as Tangerine Dream (which debuted with
Electronic Meditation in 1969), and some symphonic rock groups like Hawkwind,
experimented early on with creating alien, futuristic sound environments using
early synthesizers and manipulating all types of electronic equipment (for
example, guitar amplifiers) to produce strange sounds.

Brian Eno is still a prominent figure in ambient music. Before ambient music
became well-known, it was often filed under labels such as New Age or
Meditational. These terms are nowadays used for artists like Jean-Michel Jarre
and Vangelis, who represent a sort of mood-charged elevator-style music,
suitable for active as well as passive listening.

Modern DJ's such as Alex Paterson and Bill Drummond (The Orb/KLF) and Sven
Väth, inspired by techno and industrial music, have succeeded in the art of
making rhythmical pop music with elements of ambient music without ruining the
basic concept. Especially The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld and
Väth's Accident in Paradise are considered important milestones in "modern"
ambient.

Electronic Film
---------------

The last subject I will touch upon in this chapter is not about music.
Electronic film has existed basically since the introduction of the TV, but
never developed into a genre of its own until the late 80's. We can compare
electronic film to electronic music, and define it as film that is created
only by electronic means. The first time anything of the kind was done was
when a TV camera was aimed at a TV screen, and thus created a flowing feedback
pattern. That type of effect has also been used in music, to spiff up a melody
and add new dimensions; there's hardly a guitarist that does not know how to
employ feedback in an electronic amplifier to create new sounds. For music,
this form of manipulation came about as early as the mid-50's through
Stockhausen. For TV and film, it was never a matter of making electronic film
its own art form. Instead, technology was mostly used to create special
effects. A shining example is the vignette for the English TV series Doctor
Who, an illusion of a trip through a long, colorful tunnel, created solely
with the help of feedback patterns.

The art of filmmaking has developed in many directions, but electronic film in
particular seems to repel many filmmakers. In film, there is no tradition of
creating pictures without people. Since its inception, film has been based on
theater, and thus on dialogue. The mere thought of making a film without
people is absurd to most directors (Translator's note: and then Star Wars: The
Phantom Menace came along...). In music there is, to say the least, a much
older tradition of making music without song. One could say that music, as
opposed to theater and film, has more to do with directly generating emotions
and moods than trying to reflect real events or psychological occurrences.

In animated pictures, there have been several attempts to take a step away from
people and trying to create a symbolic universe. Mostly, however, it has only
led to compromise. Virtually all animated films are fables, i. e. they
describe things that actually occur in human society. Basically all events
that are described in cartoons involve actors with certain human physical and
psychological attributes that have been put in some human-like situation. The
few attempts at creating animated film like modern art, through the use of
symbols and patterns without "life", have almost exclusively produced
incomprehensible results.

Also relevant is the fact that film, up until the 90's, was extremely expensive
to produce and did not lend itself to frivolous experimentation. It was
necessary to have an established market potential or government financing to
afford to make a movie. Neither of these institutions is very receptive to
experimental ideas. With the introduction of cheap video technology in the
late 80's and early 90's, it became possible to experiment with film in an
entirely new way.

The computer has also made an appearance in electronic film. Here, as in music,
it is the general opinion that the computer should remain merely a tool, a
means of creating completely normal commercial or artistic film. Among those
involved with animation and computer graphics, ideas are radically different.
One of the most distinct and beautiful examples of electronic film is a series
of short movies created by George Lucas' PIXAR, a company that was founded by
the film mogul for the sole purpose of developing computer technology for
motion pictures. It goes under the collective name of Beyond the Mind's Eye,
and is well appreciated among those who already have been involved with
electronic culture. Somewhat paradoxically, in this case it was the commercial
film industry that financed the development of one of the most alternative art
forms there is. Some of PIXAR's movies are regular movies intended for a wide
audience (like cartoons but more detailed), while others are very experimental
(2).

I refer to films containing only exploding geometric figures, camera pans over
incomprehensible landscapes, fractal images, and psychedelic color patterns as
ambient films, since the idea is about the same as with ambient music - to set
a mood without a linear or coherent content. The style is related to so-called
parametric film, in which the technique, especially camera positioning and
panning, is and end in itself to lend the film a certain mood without
resorting to traditional narrative methods.

Electronic film is very popular at rave parties, and also a given ingredient in
many techno music videos, a music style which will be discussed in the next
chapter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. To "widen the frames" is considered a general characteristic of postmodern
art.

2. They've made a commercial breakthrough with the movie Toy Story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------
Chapter 7: RAVE, TECHNO AND ACID
--------------------------------

During the 80's, something strange occurred in Sweden. The DJ's that had grown
up in the seventies (and were intended as replacements for the grossly
expensive and uncontrollable live music) suddenly acquired artistic ambitions.
Small companies in the form of a mix between record companies and DJ houses
started appearing all over the Western world. They produced records containing
music for one single purpose - to be played at discos and dance clubs. It
should be as rhythmic as possible, and at a rate of about 120 beats per
minute - a perfect pace for dancing. Swemix and Nordic Beats were companies
that were typical of Sweden. Among the DJ's who became successes by combining
dance and pop music were Robert Wåtz and Rasmus Lindvall, later known as Rob
n' Raz, and they were most famous for adapting tracks from the rock group
Electric Boys to the dance floor. Others preferred to stay less commercial and
do their own thing.

During the middle and end of the 80's, and in Sweden in particular in 1987-88,
the new dance culture emerged. It was careless and carefree dancing for its
own sake, nothing well-organized and tidy that you subjected yourself to for
social reasons at discos or in physical education classes, but rather wild,
uninhibited dancing. It was the resurrection of the rhythmic, ritualistic
dance that had for centuries remained repressed and subjugated by the West's
religious and ethical values, and it returned in the form of acid house.
Naturally, established society, with its politicians, musicians, and
counselors, was outraged and terrified. And naturally, all the young people
with enough brains to be rebellious bought acid house records to freak out
their parents (including your author, who bought his first acid record, House
Nation by MBO, in 1987).

Pure house was the most successful in the beginning, probably because it was
based on funk, soul, and disco music a la George Clinton and James Brown
rather than synthetic music. The synthetic parts were limited to some bass
line, generated by a drum machine or stolen outright from some Kraftwerk
record. The style was created in Chicago, and supposedly derived its name from
the fact that dance parties were often held in warehouses (one of the first
European house music clubs was thereafter named Warehouse, and was located in
Köln, West Germany). Together with the contemporary Detroit-based techno genre
(which was purely electronic), this new dance music came to be called acid
house. Early house bands include The Royal House, the previously named MBO,
and D-Mob. When the music gained in popularity, the two styles became mixed
together, particularly in Europe where it was simply called acid, and no one
really knew what music belonged to what style. The first really influential
European house clubs appeared around Manchester, England.

Acid house was a special form of dance music which used samples (fragments of
sounds) in specific ways. It was inspired by the cacophony of machine sounds
employed by industrial music (as with Throbbing Gristle or Einstürzende
Neubauten), William S. Burroughs' style of building larger texts from small
text fragments (read more about him in the next chapter), and from the art of
collage and mosaic. The acid musicians constructed a mosaic of sound phrases,
and were almost exclusively DJ's who knew how to emphasize good dance rhythms.
You could say that it was the first instance of concrete music (the brainchild
of Pierre Schaeffer) reaching a wide audience. Sampling machines were first
introduced among musicians engaged in making concrete music.

Musically speaking, acid house developed the already existing electro-pop trend
of well-composed riffs, in the form of synthetically generated loops that set
the mood and ambience of the song. "Acid" is unfortunately also a slang term
for lysergic acid-25 (LSD). Acid house has, however, probably not derived its
name from any such association. It has been said that the true originator of
the term is the slang expression "burn acid", which was DJ jargon and referred
to the sampling sounds from records. There are, of course, others who say that
this is just a euphemistic lie, and that the term originated from a few
English musicians who visited Detroit around 1986, buying anything with the
word "acid" on it in the search for Grateful Dead and other "hippie"
recordings, but instead ended up with a slew of strange synthesized music
which turned out to be early techno and house. The name for the genre
supposedly emerged from this event. Acid house also has a characteristic
sound, a little heavier and faster than regular dance music, but milder than
the "raw synth" mentioned earlier. Sounds from synthesizers and drum machines
such as Roland 303, 707, 808, and 909 were especially popular (hence, for
example, the house group 808 State).

Acid music gained popularity at the time of the golden age of personal
computers. 1987-88-89 are considered the absolutely most intense years of the
early history of personal computing culture, which is why many demos,
pseudonyms, and group names among the subcultural hackers drew inspiration
from acid house. The two cultures rest on the same cultural base of amateurs,
and emerged thanks to the increased availability of low-cost computers and
consumer electronics during the same period. Also note a vague influence of
hacker culture on acid musicians: DJ's with names like Phuture or Phusion (if
you observe the spelling) have obviously been inspired by hackers. Acid house
also formed a kind of symbolism for youth rebellion during these years.

There has long existed a total conceptual confusion eith respect to dance
music. Acid house grew explosively into a number of sub-categories; every
larger city in England and Germany seemed to develop its own house genre, with
the same trend taking place in the US. Many quickly tired of the eternal
compromises between electronic dance music and the verse-refrain style of rock
music, or rap (which was mandatory within hip-hop), and reverted to the
original and purely electronic dance music: techno.

Techno
------

Techno sought to return to the roots of electronic pop music - the sounds and
harmonies used in regular dance music had grown tiresome, and acid house had
started sounding the same across the board. Acid was no longer breaking new
ground, and it was time for something new. DJ's who were now full-fledged
electronic musicians sat through their nights listening to Kraftwerk,
Ultravox, D.A.F. (Deutsche-Amerikanische Freundschaft) and other early synth
bands that had contributed to music culture, in an attempt to find the good
stuff that had been left behind and at the same time try to create something
new. And they succeeded, especially by using early synthesizers such as
Prophet, Fairlight, and Roland brands. The reason for this return to
yesterday's technology was supposedly that they couldn't really afford
anything else.

Techno was, as noted earlier, born in Detroit. The origin of the entire genre
can be traced to three DJ's named Magic (Juan Atkins), Reese (Kevin
Saunderon), and Mayday (Derrik May). They claim to have been inspired
especially by Kraftwerk and Parliament (George Clinton). Mayday toured England
in 1987 and provided inspiration for the underground acid scene through his
compositions. Most likely, this legendary DJ has lent his name to the enormous
Mayday rave, which is held annually in Germany and has reached astronomical
proportions.

Frankfurt had early on become inspired by Detroit techno and created its own
version, eurotechno, by trashing their Japanese synthesizers and hunting down
old relics from the seventies. SNAP invented the winning combination of a
black rapper and a female vocalist, and LA Style made a loud and provocative
song called James Brown is Dead, to signify the end of techno's affair with
funk and R&B. Groups like 2 Unlimited, Pandora, Captain Hollywood Project, and
Culture Beat fall under the collective term eurodance (in the US, this genre
is called techno/rave).

These and other early eurotechno bands brought something new that many had long
been waiting for. They abandoned the 120 bpm that had been the mark of beauty
for acid house, and pushed the pace of their songs to a level that most
closely resembled energetic punk. The tempo increased on dance floors around
the world at the same time that MTV grew really large and further expanded the
production of popular culture. We ended up with a new, wearied youth
generation which was called Generation X, who walked out of movie theaters if
nothing had happened by the first ten minutes of the film.

At the same time, the indefinable KLF (Kopyright Liberation Front) appeared
from nowhere and toured the hit lists with only one album and an incredible
amount of singles, only to later withdraw from the scene and, in their own
words, "never again make music". The group consisted of Bill Drummond, the
disillusioned former manager of (among others) Echo and the Bunnymen, and
Jimmy Cauty, a former member of Killing Joke. They introduced a totally new
element to popular music by combining the instrumentation and dance-oriented
tempo of dance music with classical rock formulations. The result was music
palatable to synth, techno and rock fans.

KLF were very aware of what they were doing. In the early stages of their
career, they wrote a book titled The Manual, and promised a full refund to
anyone who could not make it to England's hit list with the help of the book.
Before they became KLF they called themselves The Timelords and The Justified
Ancients of Mu Mu (a name which together with much of KLF's image is taken
from the cult book Illuminatus!). In reality, you should probably consider
KLF's commercial career as an example of modern art making a protest against
the pop industry. At the end of their career, they actually hated this
self-perpetuating machine that churned out the same garbage over and over
again. Throughout their career, the group was characterized by a total lack of
respect for money and established pop music, as well as a generally cynical
view of life. The leader, Drummond, was highly inspired by Zen Buddhism, and
provoked those who posed questions about the band by accusing them of being
under the influence of the four mistresses of Lucifer: Why, What, Where, and
When, which are questions that according to Zen cannot be answered by words.
Early on, Drummond worked with Alex Paterson on The Orb, and the two together
could be said to have invented the genre of ambient techno.

KLF also clearly shows the connection between attitudes in the underground
dance culture and among hackers. As many other DJ's, they sampled extensively
from other artists, and more or less held the opinion that music should not be
patented. On one occasion they sampled ABBA and wrote (somewhat provocatively)
on the back of the album that "KLF hereby declares all material on this record
free of copyright", which eventually resulted in the entire issue being burned
on a field somewhere in central Sweden. This took place after KLF failed to
convince ABBA to withdraw their threat of legal action that they received from
ABBA's Swedish representatives. On another occasion, Drummond began
to "liberate" the group's equipment during a gig at a London club, which
forced the club owners to intervene to stop the guests from taking the
machines home with them.

In England, there is a whole array of strange musicians in addition to KLF:
among others, the ambient music revolutionaries Black Dog Productions and an
idiosyncratic group named The Prodigy, who invented their own style of music
called breakbeat. These groups, like KLF, appeared in the late 80's in synch
with various independent bands such as Pop Will Eat Itself. The explosive
development of the music business in England was due to the very pop industry
that KLF specifically protested.

A considerable proportion of people in England go to "in" clubs and listen to
the latest music before it is released, and the top hits list is a creation
based on lobbying, without any connection to reality whatsoever. In actuality,
England's Top 40 is simply an institution of power that the pop industry
employs to tell the public what they should buy. Since entries on the list go
up and down at a violent rate, new music and new artists must be generated
constantly (translator's note: At the time of this translation, a clear-cut
example would be The Spice Girls). In this frenzy, hundreds of artists get
their chance to show what they can do, for better or for worse. Originality is
much more interesting than technical skill. In this manner, the pop industry
sought out acid house music from the small suburban clubs, and the improbable
event that this narrow genre made the hits list actually occurred. This
phenomenon has turned England into the "engine" behind European popular music.

In Germany, Sven Väth and a myriad of other DJ's produced a mix of techno and
ambient clearly influenced by the eighties' acid house: trance, which in
England was combined with influences from the Indian vacation paradise Goa and
labeled goa-techno. Some half-crazed Dutch guys who called themselves
Rotterdam Termination Source made a piece of music using only drums and sound
effects: Poing. In this manner they created a genre called hardcore techno,
which has developed into a hybrid of techno and death metal, often using a
tempo of 300-400 bpm. This hybrid has gotten some former metalheads into
techno.

Electronic pop music is never static: there's always something new, and there's
constant experimentation in small studios around the world. Crossover techno,
in which techno is mixed with other music genres, springs up everywhere. It is
often very commercial, with perhaps the exception of the hyper-experimental
The Grid, who have for the first time in their career made a commercial
success with Swamp Thing - a mix of techno and banjo pieces. Jungle is a genre
which is both a predecessor to and a continuation of The Prodigy's
breakbeat-techno - a mix of techno, rag and dub music which seems very
promising and which is also not particularly commercialized. The most hardcore
is gabber, which is a corrupted version of hardcore techno. God knows what's
going to be invented next: gospel techno, perhaps?

Other musicians, such as Future Sound of London, Black Dog Productions and the
Swedish Lucky People Center, have approached electronic music and make up a
genre known as progressive house, i. e. house music which is going somewhere,
and is always under development. These people want to escape the concept of
genres by breaking all norms. Thanklessly, genre-breaking becomes a genre in
itself; there is a similar phenomenon within jazz.

As soon as a genre becomes commercial, as when techno became eurodance through
U96, the smaller clubs tend to invent some new variant and sneak back into the
underground. Examples of this include Jungle, Goa-techno and Gabber. Jungle
is, at the time of this writing, on its way out of the underground, and new
styles are most certainly being created as we speak in some studio in Germany,
England, Holland or Belgium. You can hold whatever opinion you want on this;
in practice, the entire underground club culture is simply a concept factory
for the pop industry. They find something new, polish it and water it down a
bit, and then release it for a mass audience. If you believe in infinite
artistic integrity and creative art, it's probably a horrible thing to
witness. On the other hand, maybe we should be thankful that we're not
listening to the same chewing-gum pop music of twenty years ago.

Clubs and Raves
---------------

Techno is mostly played in small private clubs, even though it is today
possible to sell techno albums to people who are not DJ's. As a cultural
manifestation, techno has strong ties to the dance floor, and the two could be
said to constitute a unified whole.

Dance music has changed the music market. In the old days, you listened to the
radio and checked out your friends' preferences, bought the records and
listened to them at home. Nowadays, you go to a dance club or even a rave, and
become influenced by the music you hear there - the type of music that's made
for dancing. Later, you might by an album or two. Eurodance mix albums are
especially strong sellers.

Techno is not designed for "easy listening" at home, and it can have a
stressful effect if it is used as background music. In England, where the
public traditionally is very open to new forms of music, heavy and
uncompromising techno music has made a commercial breakthrough; likewise in
Germany, which with its tradition of electronic music a la Kraftwerk welcomes
any new innovations in that realm. Even in Southern Europe, really heavy
techno tracks are played on pop radio.(1)

Raves are still very underground events in Sweden and Scandinavia, even if its
interest base has grown explosively since 1988. Today, there are thousands of
happy ravers in Sweden, who are often willing to travel far to attend a good
rave. In Germany and Great Britain, raves are already accepted cultural
events, which in some cases attract up to150,000 people, such as the
well-known Mayday rave in Germany (which is sometimes described as the
Woodstock of our time). Special raves are also arranged for different genres.
Raves in Scandinavia are usually not announced in the daily press; the
information is spread through the grapevine and through flyers that are
available given the right contacts.

A type of rave that receives a lot of attention is the so-called bryt-rave
(English: break-rave), which entails breaking into a warehouse, setting up a
sound stage and starting to dance. It is reminiscent of a sort of house
occupation, and if the number of attendees is large, the police stands
powerless. This type of rave has been somewhat frequent in Hammarbyhamnen
(Hammarby Harbor) in Stockholm. One could make a connection to the Prodigy
track break & enter, in which sounds of glass braking and doors being pushed
open accompany the music. The sense of revolt and insolence against society is
complete.

The rave culture is primarily based on the Trance genre, which can keep a dance
floor alive all through the night with its long songs in a perfect dance
tempo. A rave is not an event to attend to get drunk or pick up someone. A
rave is a place for dancing, listening to music, meeting and looking at other
people. Whoever attends a rave with different intentions will invariably be
disappointed.

Rave culture is claiming expansion - even futuristic dress and other methods of
creating a homogeneous group identity have started to develop. The rave sites
(mostly warehouses) have also started to receive futuristic interiors to give
more of a "cyber-feeling" to the environment. The phenomenon has gained a
Swedish face through Mikael Jägerbrand, editor-in-chief of the relatively new
magazine NU NRG Update (pronounced "New Energy"), which has a run of about
1000 copies and has a layout that really screams "underground"; the page
layout is reminiscent of American tabloid classifieds. It is of course a good
move - ravers love being underground. Despite its small circulation, the
magazine is not sectarian or single-minded, and it shows a certain sense of
distance and social awareness.(2)  There's also a few smaller fanzines, and
naturally a few electronic bulletins and magazines.

Clubs, Trends, and Drugs
------------------------

The (Swedish) debate around dance events such as acid parties and raves is
severely inflamed by the narcotics debate. The underground dance culture is
under no circumstances endorsing or approving of drug use. Unfortunately,
sometimes people attending dance events can be total spacebrains(3) . The main
purpose of dance parties was and remains dancing and music. Originally, acid
parties were completely drug-free events.

As early as the late 80's, the discos on Ibiza (a Spanish island resort) hooked
on to the acid house trend and created their own version, balearic beat, a mix
between house, flamenco (!), and a few other styles mostly associated with the
artist Paul Oakenfold. Ibiza is primarily visited by rich people, mostly from
England, and it has drugs in abundance.

The reason for the popular connection between drugs and acid house/rave is thus
that those who enjoyed partying all night before the introduction of the acid
parties, brought their strange fashionable drugs when they went to visit one.
Especially the "designer drug" Ecstasy, a mix between amphetamines and LSD,
has figured heavily in the media. Ecstasy is originally a "yuppie-drug", which
has become a sort of exclusive marijuana for the rich. In the beginning it was
sold as a diet drug. The greatest culpability for the narcotic stamp on rave
and acid culture falls on English upper-class youths. The drugs ruined the
reputation of all the intense house-clubs around Manchester, and the stigma
remains.

Nonetheless, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and cocaine are present at some rave-like
events. As expected, it seems to occur more at purely commercial dances, to
which the "in" crowd that want to stay abreast of the new culture is drawn.
Enthusiasts at small techno clubs are mostly of the opinion that Ecstasy is a
nuisance which ruins the reputation of techno culture. Unfortunately, since
everything that is prohibited is also "rebellious", drugs have spread to
several acid and techno clubs, including Swedish ones. The clueless
middle-class rebel thinks, as usual, that you're a real rebel only when you do
drugs. Independent thought is never popular among conformist groups. In short:
ravers with brains stay away from drugs, and those who don't know anything
naturally think drugs are really cool (no, it's true - people never learn).

Large clubs are frequent in major cities. They are kitschy, well decorated,
with mean bouncers and a fairly long line regardless of whether it's full or
not (to create demand, of course). They are not about supporting some
subculture, even though many DJ's from the underground scene get a chance to
make some money in these clubs. Drugs are consumed in the bathrooms.(4)

The terror in homes around the country is complete. The poor parents of these
young people remember with horror those few years at the end of the 60's, when
they themselves were swept up by the wind from San Francisco, smoked marijuana
and hasch, and tried LSD. Not many are willing to admit to that today, but
their fear of their kids doing the same thing today is genuine. The main theme
then was protesting the Vietnam War and society, and the main theme today is
dancing and having fun. Ravers don't need politics as an excuse to meet and
enjoy themselves. Drugs are tangential, and not at all as prevalent as media
would have it appear. Fear and misunderstanding often inflates the problem to
bizarre proportions.

One thing that ravers do enjoy are so-called smart drinks - energy drinks that
help rave dancers keep dancing a long, long time. Mostly it is a matter of
substances that can be found in any pharmacy or herbal medicine store, but
with different labels. There is no reason to suppose that this should be
harmful - middle-aged Swedes have consumed the pills for decades without
suffering harm. What is worse is the tendency to mix prescription drugs with
the drinks, which is something that cyperpunks in particular do sometimes
(more on this in the next chapter). Most of the "emergencies" reported about
drugs on rave parties is due to journalists attending some event and seeing
these sugar pills and sodas on the bar, frequently wrapped in some
pastel-colored paper or foil, which naturally appear very ominous. If you
interview young people who have been to a rave, they most likely will say yes
to having taken Ecstasy, even if they've actually consumed a bunch of St.
John's Wort. It happens, sometimes.

Some member of the debate has tried to submit the fact that the dancing itself
is harmful. The statement that the capacity of ecstatic dance - which is
imprinted in our genes since thousands of years - fails by virtue of its own
stupidity. Such a statement is thus rather an expression of conservative
cultural values or even xenophobia, which seems to be a characteristic of
many "opiners". Obviously, the people that do not attend regular dance clubs
and listen to Stairway to Heaven for the 18803rd time, while drinking
themselves silly, and are not there just to try to get laid, must be suspect?
cluelessness, in short.

Even in Sweden, frightened cops have broken up rave parties for no reason
whatsoever in their total ignorance of how underground culture works. Some
police raids against rave dances most closely resemble ethnic discrimination -
of the same kind practiced by customs agents and retail security officers who
target people of different pigmentation or dress. Some cops are apparently
susceptible to excessive stereotypical categorization.

The cause of the cultural phenomenon of rave is that the actual dancing at the
larger, commercial clubs has become secondary. The organizers are mostly
interested in selling as much beer and liquor as possible, and the patrons are
more oriented towards boozing and picking up someone than dancing. The
inherent value of the dance has been abandoned.

It has occurred to me that it might actually be a good thing that rave suffers
from a bad reputation. It prevents people with purely commercial interests
from advertising gigantic rave parties, and thereby commercializing the
vibrant underground technoculture. Sometimes it even seems that ravers are
somewhat amused by having a "bad reputation", for identifying with the
underground. In Sweden, this negative image has only had the effect of
attracting more young people to the parties.

Music and Music Culture
-----------------------

In reference to electronic music, it generally seems as if every new generation
of innovative musicians is scorned by the previous one: classical electronic
musicians look with distaste on electronic pop music, synth pop fans despise
heavy synth and techno musicians, techno musicians dislike hardcore techno
musicians etc. etc. It might be redundant to mention that classical and rock
musicians scorn all forms of electronic music.

This is probably a necessary state of affairs. It is the distancing from older
norms that creates a new subcultural group within an accepted domain, and this
is how culture grows and develops. The argument is applicable to literature,
film, theater - in short, all types of art. Techno music and techno culture
is, especially due to the influence of television, inextricably associated
with the art of video and computing. That techno is inseparable from dance has
already been illustrated. This development of popular culture has resulted in
many artists that are more like some form of product than people. The music is
created in a studio, performed by a group of photo models, etc. Popular music
becomes more than music - it becomes part of a culture. You don't buy just a
record, you buy a lifestyle. Fashion, dance, film - everything is included. It
could be summarized and called "art". Popular art.

Art grows and develops when individuals, with a desire to create something new
where not everything has been tried, go against the norms and create something
new. Mostly the individuals are young, such as Sex Pistols, Grateful Dead, Bob
Dylan or Jack Kerouac (well, they were young when they started). Sometimes it
is some eccentric artistic soul like Marcel Proust, James Joyce, or Frank
Zappa. When a young artist breaks out of the norms there arises, given the
right circumstances, a new subculture, which under even more conducive
circumstances creates a new spirit of a generation.

The smaller the Earth becomes, and the farther our mass media reach, the more
subcultures develop, generations change faster, and society changes faster.
This is a characteristic of the post-industrial society which I will later
explore further. Let it be stated that the breaking of norms and creation of
new ones is very important for these new styles of music. It also has a
considerable importance for the more central points of this book.

We will now see how the pulsing rhythm in culture generated an entirely new
literary genre, a new view of society, and - soon - a new ideology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In Sweden, as of late 1996 no such breakthrough has taken place. Perhaps the
Swedish public is simply too conservative. However, things are slowly moving
forward. Kalle Dernulf, of P3 (part of Swedish national public radio), is
probably the one who has dedicated himself the most to spreading Swedish and
foreign techno in the ether.

2. Jägerbrand and the Swedish Rave Organization (SRO) are at the time of this
writing organizing a "raverixdag" (English (loosely translated): Rave
Congress) to coordinate Swedish rave organizers. Someone remarked
sarcastically that "they seem to have to make everything political", but in
light of the Nacka Police Department's dubious raids against Docklands (a rave
site) during the Spring of 1996, the need for an organized resistance group is
understandable.

3. Some have made the observation that it shouldn't be a great experience to
attend a rave on a "downer" drug, such as hasch. I have personally observed
that it appears fairly abundundantly at raves; why, I do not understand.
Possibly it may be due to the hasch (THC) having a mildly psychedelic effect.
In this context, I'd like to take the opportunity to mention that I'm
personally neither for nor against drugs per se, which you might conclude from
the strong formulation above. What I am against is the tendency to blame drug
use on culture. On drugs in general I don't have a clear and expressed
opinion, rather I reserve the privilege of ignoring that debate, which is sure
to piss somebody off.

4. If someone interprets this to mean that I think that these "beer cafés"  are
the pathetic hangouts of the "in" crowd, that someone has interpreted me
correctly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
Chapter 8: CYBERPUNK
--------------------

Cyberpunk is originally a literature- and film-oriented movement. We will begin
with literature.

There are different science fiction genres (abbreviated:  sci-fi ), and the
definitions are somewhat arbitrary. Sci-fi bibliographies often range across
such wide areas as  fantasy  and  horror , but this book is not about science
fiction literature in general. I will therefore proceed to the part of sci-fi
that is called cyberpunk.

The definition of cyberpunk is usually that it is a book that resembles
something written by  William Gibson ; a type of futuristic account of society
where advanced computer, nano-, and biotechnology as well as artificial
intelligence is part of the ordinary. The world is rigidly segregated by a
small, ruling elite of multinational corporations and a large, brutal mass of
regular people. Governments have yielded to large conglomerates and mafias,
which control the world. The action generally takes place in enormous
metropolitan areas of a ghetto-like character. Drugs of all kinds are widely
available, the pace is fast, and personal and environmental descriptions are
superficial and often (in the case of Gibson) chock-full of trademarks and
digital jargon. A typical cyberpunk story is set around the year 2020.

Cyberpunk is usually referred to as  dystopian , as it describes something
close to the opposite of a  utopia . Most early science fiction novels were
utopian, where disease was a thing of times past, a unified political system
had replaced constant conflict, and the action usually centered around a group
of scientists on a mission across the universe, or on space heroes such as
Flash Gordon . The TV series  Star Trek  is a definitive utopia. It is not the
case that a utopia has no problems; it is simply that "the good guys" are
always win and never morally questionable. All utopian chronicles are
optimistic visions of the society of the future.

In a dystopia, many problems remain in the world, the natural environment is
almost completely ruined, and politics is (as usual) chaotic. The books are
therefore much more plausible than classical sci-fi works, and has acquired a
wide readership among people who normally do not read sci-fi. Earlier, some
were of the opinion that it was unnecessary to descrabe realities that were
worse  than the one on Earth. Some dystopian authors, like Stephen King,
therefore abandoned science fiction in favor of writing horror literature.
Dystopias are, however, more auitable for social criticism than utopian works.
Since many dystopias are satirical or comedic, cyberpunk constitutes a sharp
contrast through its cold realism. Other notable dystopias are Karin  Boyes'
Kallocain  and  George Orwell's 1984 .

Just like most US science fiction, cyberpunk has its roots in so-called pulp
fiction. Pulp is a rough cellulose material used to make paper, and pulp
fiction derives its name from the rough, porous quality of the paper it was
printed on. Since the film industry was still at an embryonic stage, people
read much more books and magazines, and pulp was the "crude", cheap
literature. Comics and TV series such as Flash Gordon are also called pulp,
since they were inspired by stories and illustrations from these magazines.
Pulp seems silly and incredibly far-fetched to the normal Swedish reader, but
for sci-fi lovers across the world, pulp is the origin and source of all
modern science fiction, and the cause of its own subculture.

Bruce Sterling , Gibson, and a few other sci-fi authors had their own pulp
magazine called  Cheap Truth . Although it wasn't produced in the 50's, it was
run in and with the same spirit as the best early pulp magazines. They thought
that no really good sci-fi was being written. They encouraged people to get
their own word processors and write  good, vivid, and readable  science
fiction. Not seldom did they come down on best-selling authors in the genre.
An interesting detail about Cheap Truth was that it wasn't copyrighted, and
that copying and distribution was encouraged.

Cyberpunk is a little more than this, but the literary genre is basically
synonymous with a small group of American authors, of which William Gibson and
Bruce Sterling were the most famous. A few 2000 AD comics, especially  Judge
Dredd , are also considered cyberpunk, since their world is somewhat similar
to Gibson's dystopias. The term cyberpunk was supposedly coined by a gentleman
named  Gardner Dozois  in a review of Gibson's first book,  Neuromancer .
Dozois is said to have, in turn, gotten that label from a short story by
Bruce Bethke , which had been submitted for his review. (1)

The message of the cyberpunk novel is one of warning - the stories are
nightmarish visions of a future society that we risk becoming subjects of,
unless we take precautions. The word  cyberpunk  is derived from  cybernetics
= humans or society in the interaction with machines (from the greek
kybeternetes  = first mate or pilot), and  punk =  virtually lawless
individual with a mildly anarchistic social view, cowboy style, living in the
underground.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This resulted in a considerable amount of controversy. Bethke considered it
his right to define the term "cyberpunk", since he had invented it. Bethke's
definition does not coincide with Dozois's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------
Chapter 9: AN ELECTRONIC INTEREST GROUP
---------------------------------------

The story of hackers, phreakers, telephone companies, and justice is told (from
an American perspective) in Bruce Sterling's  The Hacker Crackdown  (1992).
The reason this science-fiction author decided to write a history of hackers,
is exactly what I have tried to illustrate with my arguments so far: that
aspects of electronic cultures overlap. The whole thing started when the U.S.
Secret Service tried to clip the wings off the underground hacker movement,
and on some occasions strayed far outside the limits for law enforcement
intervention.

They really wanted to  nail  the hackers, who had grown extremely powerful in
just a few years, through a national crackdown (hence the title of the book),
with the intent of teaching the hackers a lesson. This crackdown was named
Operation Sundevil. The Secret Service busted into the homes of American
teenagers, grabbing everything with wires coming out of it. The computer, the
printer, the portable stereo, mom's and dad's computers, all of it. That
wasn't enough: they also took  manuals , or anything remotely resembling one:
science-fiction novels and regular compact disc records, for example.

All of you can probably figure out what happens if you take all the hacker's
machines away from him or her. He/she becomes totally powerless, with no means
of keeping in contact with friends or communicate in open electronic
discussions. The hackers not only had their wings clipped; they also had their
mouths sewn shut. This is exactly what the Secret Service wanted, and probably
no one would have been concerned - not even Bruce Sterling - if they had
stayed content to just raid hackers. Many hackers arrested during the
crackdown were given sentences that prohibited them from using computers for a
certain period of time.

On March 1, 1990, the Secret Service committed a mistake: they went into the
gaming company  Steve Jackson Games , in Austin, TX, and confiscated all the
computers that they could find, including one which had a completely new game
stored on its hard drive:  GURPS Cyberpunk  (GURPS stands for Generic
Universal Role Playing System, developed by Steve Jackson Games to make it
easier to switch between roleplaying settings without having to switch gaming
systems).

Steve Jackson Games, therefore, make  role-playing games , and the game GURPS
Cyberpunk was written by a hacker going by the pseudonym  Mentor  (his real
name was  Lloyd Blankenship ), and who worked as an author at the company.
When the company demanded the return of its computer, or at least the files
for GURPS Cyberpunk (which was just about to be marketed), their request was
denied, with the justification that it was not a game but rather a manual for
perpetrating computer crime. Mentor himself was a hacker, and had written an
excellent and realistic game which focused on breaking into different computer
systems. The game was considered dangerous.

Anyone who's seen a roleplaying game knows that it is a matter of a kind of
books  used as reference material for the games, in which the players try to
create and enter a world of the imagination.  GURPS Cyberpunk , therefore, was
a  BOOK , released by a publisher, with an ISBN number just like any other
book. The fact that the U.S. Secret Service had tried to stop the publication
of  a book , simply because the contents were held to be  too dangerous , was
not well received by conscientious citizens of the U.S. The freedom of the
press is constitutional in the U.S. (like in Sweden), and a fantasy-oriented
role-playing game like  GURPS Cyberpunk  has the same official right to exist
as  The New York Times , whether it teaches computer crime techniques or not -
as long as it doesn't advocate the perpetration of crimes.

After a period of fuss in regards to the Steve Jackson Games case, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation  was formed, led by (among others) the Grateful
Dead lyricist  John Perry Barlow .(1)  They were financially supported by
Mitch Kapor , who was one of the creators of the spreadsheet program  Lotus
1-2-3 . The organization had supporters among the users of the electronic
conferencing system  The Well , created by the magazine  The Whole Earth
Review  in San Francisco. WELL is short for  Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link , and
in principle functions as a gigantic BBS with connections to the Internet.
(You could also view it as a metaphorical "well of knowledge".) Many users of
The Well are old hippies and Grateful Dead fans, who dearly value their rights
of free speech and assembly. Many are what I call university hackers,
engineers, or programmers. The hippie-programmer combination is not unusual at
The Well. (I mentioned earlier that the hippie culture originated at the
universities in the Bay area. Consider Mitch Kapor, for example - before he
started making business software, he was a meditation instructor.)

San Francisco is almost a chapter of its own. It is the Meccha of the
electronic world. The universities Berkeley and Stanford are in the area, and
close by is Silicon Valley. The majority of modern computer technology comes
from San Francisco. It is where the first personal computer, the Altair, was
built, and it is also the home of EFF, The Well, Whole Earth Review, Wired,
and MONDO 2000. Virtually all forms of popular electronic culture have
originated in San Francisco, and it is also where Virtual Reality was first
marketed. At the same time, I would say that San Francisco's reputation is a
little exaggerated. It has just as much to do with American attitudes and
marketing as real knowledge, and the expertise that computer technology rests
on has been researched and developed all across the world. However, it is a
natural nexus for amateurs as well as the pros of the computer industry.
Silicon Valley, in particular, has had great significance, with its thousands
of bored upper-middle-class engineers waiting with anticipation for anything
to happen on the electronic frontier. These people constitute the innermost
core of EFF.

EFF has quality contacts inside the entire American software and hardware
industries, and champion  the electronic rights of human beings . The
organization does not protect hackers, as is often said, but it protects the
rights of hackers. EFF is therefore a  civil rights organization . Like the
cyberpunks, EFF is ideologically influenced by libertarianism, but on many
issues (such as "intellectual property"), they are on a collision course with
the libertarians. I will now try to illustrate how threats against civil
rights and individual integrity are manifested in the information society.

The Right to Communicate
------------------------

EFF stated (and states) that it is a violation of integrity to take someone's
computer away from them. It is as violating as taking away the right for an
individual to use pen and paper. A hacker is used to communicating with the
world by computer, through BBSs, the Internet, etc. Taking the computer from
the hacker is akin to taking the typewriter (word processor, pens, or paper)
from the author. EFF sued the Secret Service for constitutional violations in
connection with the raid on Steve Jackson Games - and they won. The
organization now works towards a constitutional amendment protecting
electronic expression.

In short: a computer criminal should not be prevented from using computers
(everyone uses them nowadays), but from committing more computer crime. You
don't prevent a counterfeiter from working at the mint - you teach him to stop
printing fake currency. Properly used, the illegal hacker's knowledge is
useful to society.

Integrity
---------

EFF has grown since its inception, and currently sponsors a public debate about
computers and humans in a future information society. It wants to protect the
right of the individual not to be registered and controlled by authorities,
simply because it is now possible thanks to the advent of the computer. The
organization therefore advocates the use of the encryption program PGP, which
I discussed earlier. Why? Well, SÄPO (the Swedish National Security Police) -
or some other internal intelligence organization - should not be allowed to
examine all postal transmissions in Sweden. They should not be able to read
all electronic mail, either.  But , they could (if they so wished) put a fast,
efficient computer to the task of searching all electronic mail for certain
keywords, in order to quickly trace new political groups. (It is astonishingly
simple to construct such a program; I could even do it myself.) Let's say that
every piece of electronic mail containing the words "REVOLUTION", "WEAPONS",
or "SOCIETY", in any combination, would be copied and sent to an analyst. You
would never know.

According to  Philip Zimmerman  (creator of PGP), it is precisely because of
this that one should encrypt one's mail so that no third party could read it.
Of course, in democratic Sweden, we would prevent internal organizations from
doing such horrible things. Nevertheless, there might be good reasons to
encrypt one's mail. Why?

First: there are people besides SÄPO and the local revenue office that might
want to see if you're writing something inappropriate. Second: do you trust
the authorities? If so, why not just send them a copy of your personal
communications, so that they can check them and be sure that you're not
sitting around conspiring? What do you, a conscientious citizen, have to hide?
Why not let the police search your house for illegal weapons? You see where
I'm going - encryption protects the privacy of the individual from
governmental intrusion.(2)

All the chaos surrounding PGP started on April 10, 1991, when the U.S. Congress
made a statement about encryption programs. It clearly stated that it expected
everyone involved in the manufacture of encryption technology, of any kind, to
incorporate back doors so that the government could read the encrypted
information if necessary. The message was a frightening one: you may keep
secrets - but keep no secrets from the government. Shortly after, Zimmerman's
colleague, Kelly Goen, went around San Francisco and distributed PGP do
different BBSs using pay phones. (!) He held that Congress was in violation of
the Constitution, and performed this act in order to protect American society
from totalitarian supervision. recently, the European Union sent a similar
missive to the nations of Europe. (Americans are much more sensitive to these
matters than Swedes - which is fortunate, I should say. Translator's note:
Nevertheless, and ironically perhaps, the privacy rights of individuals in the
U.S. are in much worse shape than in the Scandinavian countries - due to
private record-keeping organizations such as the credit bureaus, which have
become a sort of universal information source that sells all the information
it has to anyone willing to pay for it).

Encryption, by the way, is not expressly an American thing. Us Swedes have been
in the cipher game for at least as long. As early as WWII, we decrypted German
communications going through Sweden. In 1984, the "expert"  Ragnar Eriksson
and his friends at SÄPO made an encryption system which, with the approval of
the executive branch, they tried to sell together with other
security "know-how". Alas, the system was worthless, since SÄPO has never had
any encryption experts worth their name, and no one wanted to buy the system
(3)

Those who are professionally involved in encryption (thus  not  SÄPO, but the
military and the universities) almost always encounter upstarts who think
they've invented the world's best encryption system. Common to all these
parvenus is that they want to keep their systems secret, as they consider
themselves so bright that no other person has ever been on the same track. All
the pros release their algorithms (encoding principles) and tell people how
the system works; if it is good enough, nobody can break the cipher  even
though they know how it works. Some examples include DES (Data Encryption
Standard), and IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) - which is used
in PGP. (SÄPO did not want to publish their algorithms...) Neither DES nor
IDEA are impossible to crack - it's just that it would take a few million
years for today's computers to do so, using current deciphering techniques.

As an illustrative example, I will mention a common beginner's crypto which
entails adding a sequence of random numbers to a digitally stored text. It
would be very hard to crack if the message was not any longer than the
sequence of numbers, but with longer messages this randomness can be removed
as easily as static can be filtered out of a radio signal.

Sweden Awakens
--------------

Today, Swedish police have already been guilty of questionable activities
relating to the freedom of expression. They have confiscated BBSs, used as an
exchange medium for private electronic mail, and probably also examined the
private mail stored on these. This has been carried out on suspicions that the
BBSs were used in the distribution of pirated software. It can be compared to
sifting through all the mail in one of the Postal Service's boxes simply on
the suspicion that somewhere in this box there is information about a crime.
Would you want your mail read simply because it happened to end up in the same
box as a letter from, say, a car theft ring? (I don't even know if the police
have the right to do such a thing, but I don't like the thought of it.)

"Holy Christ",  the police say,  "those who use a BBS are despicable hackers!
That doesn't have anything to do with normal people's privacy, does it?"

It's great that they were hackers, and not  Jews  or  immigrants , but simply
regular, honest hackers, which we all know are terribly criminal. Hundreds of
BBS users, regular Swedes with no criminal records, have had their right to
privacy abridged simply because they fall under the fuzzy (to say the least)
category of  hackers ? And the police are upset because they have found
encrypted material in these BBSs, which is hard or impossible to read. I
really  feel sorry for them.

Consider that today's BBSs will, in the future, be replaced by the Internet,
through which you are expected to send all your mail. What will happen then?
Are we going to have cops running around auditing the mail, seizing large
quantities of mail when they suspect something illegal might be lurking inside
the pile? But, but... the police follow the law, and according to the law,
electronic documents or communications are not covered by the freedom of the
press. Hopefully, they are protected under the freedom of speech, but not even
this is certain. Everything is very fuzzy, and no one seems to know what the
facts are. Legislation is in progress.

Considering all the threats against integrity, the observant citizen naturally
wants protection against surveillance, and therefore acquires an encryption
program. American intelligence agencies want you to use their "Clipper Chip"
instead of your own crypto. The "Clipper Chip" is a very good encryption
program which, according to themselves, only the Secret Service has a back
door to. The European governments have something similar in the works, which
has at the time of this writing not been formalized.

Another use for encryption (besides making your mail unreadable) is to put a
seal  on your messages - a kind of electronic check digit, which can
mathematically prove that the sender is who he/she claims to be,  and  that
the content has not been changed. This way, electronic bulletins can be
mass-distributed without having to worry about somebody "cutting" them, at
least not without being noticed. This method is used by, among others, SWIFT,
which is an international bank transaction system.

Those interested in the underlying technology of encryption should pick up a
book on the subject. American cryptographers (like Zimmerman) are monitored by
military intelligence agencies. (I don't know if this is the case for Swedish
crypto-scientists.) In some countries, e. g. France, all encryption by private
individuals is prohibited.

Swedish Rights
--------------

What about civil rights in Sweden and the rest of Europe? Is an organization
like EFF necessary on this side of the Atlantic as well> Maybe - especially
since European police agencies learn about computer crime fighting by peeking
at the USA. In Sweden, police have also confiscated computers and disks, but
also magazines, T-shirts, and printers, in American fashion. The police in the
U.S. didn't know what to do with all the stuff they seized - and the Swedish
police doesn't know either. It's not a mystery why it takes a virtual
eternity  to sort out hacker crimes, considering the amount of junk that the
investigators collect as evidence. When I did an inventory of my own
collection of about 200 disks, it took me over a month, and I only made
superficial notes of the contents of each file. A criminal investigator has to
be  a great deal  more thorough for his evidence to stand up in court, and a
well-organized hacker can, in worse cases, have  thousands  of disks.

The time span and delays for the prosecution of a hacker is worse than those
for refugees, with the difference that these cases are eventually dismissed.
To the extent that the hackers ever see their equipment again, it is most
often outdated and without value. The police are still holding computers
seized six years ago. In many cases, the hackers' computers are considered
instruments of crime rather than communication channels. Even Swedish hackers'
rights of free expression have been infringed during police raids - whether
they have been criminals or not. Remember where  Cervantes  spent his time
while writing  Don Quixote . (In prison.) Should the pen and paper have been
wrested from him simply because he was a criminal? In at least one case, the
Swedish police has been charged with violating rights of free speech and
freedom of information.

As early as 1984, Sweden's National Police Board determined that seizure of
equipment could cause problems, and that this should only be done in
exceptional cases. Today, it's more of the rule than the exception. If they
had been able to follow their own directives, which said to copy the
information and lend it to the victim, the situation would have been much more
pleasant for both parties. In that case, the hackers would not have had to
have their computers stored in police warehouses for decades.

We also have a law of criminal forfeiture, which means that equipment used in
the commission of a crime can be considered forfeited, and subject to sale or
destruction. This might be reasonable in the case of specialized equipment
like lock picks, "blue boxes", or other directly criminal equipment, but
computers ? If a typewriter is used for criminal purposes, it is thus
forfeited? Can we have just an ounce of freedom of speech, too?

The information age has now caused some prosecutions against the distribution
of specific, protected information to become completely unmanageable. Are you
struck by the same thought as I? That this plays into the hands of the
cyberpunks? If information really  can  be owned - can we in that case uphold
its copyright in a rational manner? Or is our old society in about to change
with regards to copyright? Relax, there is a cure for all this.  Computers
are very good at controlling large amounts of information, and quickly at
that. The organization  BSA  ( Business Software Alliance , an association of
companies in the software industry) is apparently prepared to have a program
called  Search II  stand witness in cases against companies suspected of
piracy. The program works by reading the contents of a computer's hard drive
and registering which programs are installed. The reason for doing this as
opposed to seizing equipment, is that corporations, as opposed to hackers,
raise one  hell  of a racket if you take all their computers. So far, so good.

When companies and (sometimes) people are charged with piracy, the police rely
on BSA and the Search II program for technical expertise. It is a bit strange
that BSA, which represents the plaintiff, is also relied on to collect
evidence. Strange, to say the least. Now, allow me to insert a small
provocation, which might help you think along new lines:

Q: Do we want computers to witness against corporations and individuals?

Q: Why not leave the entire justice system to computers? Automated, powerful,
cost-effective - comes in all colors - no difficult interrogations or delayed
trials...

Personally, I don't think we should let computers stand witness until they're
at least as intelligent as humans. But if a human can testify under oath as to
the credibility of what the computer says, then OK. We have for many years
allowed objects to act as witnessed, or  evidence , as we call it. All
evidence, however, has to be interpreted by one or more people before it
becomes practically meaningful. What is relevant is that computers are
evidence which has a hitherto unlimited potential for lying, since they can be
manipulated in any way by anyone. I think we should stay clear of electronic
justice for a long time - the risk of judicial corruption is obvious.

The question of computers keeping tabs on individuals is a little more sinister
than it appears at first glance - information technology, if properly applied,
can be used to prevent or  totally eliminate  certain types of crime. Do we
really want this? Do we want an intelligent breathalyzer in our car, which
tells us when we can't drive? Perhaps such supervision of driving habits will
be legislated in the future. Do we want the recipient of a phone call to
always be able to know who we are?

For example, there is a program called  Net Nanny, which is a "baby-sitter" for
the Internet. It can be set to supervise children communicating over the
Internet, and will automatically shut down the connection if some "dirty old
man" starts asking for a name or a phone number. Even if the purpose seems
noble, one could ask what would happen if an extraordinarily benevolent
government should apply such filters to all of its citizens' communications. I
mean, why not pull the plug as soon as someone starts talking about certain
kinds of explosives, or starts using to many violent words - just in case...
(Note: irony.)

As opposed to a cop, the computer is  everywhere , and basically free. Should
we let our possibility to choose between obeying or ignoring the law be
eliminated by computers? Should they become our collective, electronic
conscience, and give us an electronically monitored utopia in which there is
no crime, since no crimes  can  be committed? It is not as simple a question
as you could think, if you consider it for a while... the EFF, and other
organizations, are of the opinion that it is  inhuman  to take away the
individual's right to disobey. So far, all social control has been based on
self-control, a condition which is threatened by automation. There is a risk
of principles being upheld for the sole reason that the computers have been
programmed to uphold them. This is one of the things that  Paul Verhouen 's
cyberpunk film  Robocop  is about - mechanical beings who with never-ending
efficiency chastise the citizen into obedience.

B = Bob
C = The Car

B : Hi Car.
C : Hi Bob!
B ( jumping into the driver's seat ): Let's go...
C : Just a moment, Bob, your voice is a little off... you haven't been drinking
anything, have you?
B : Oh no, of course not...
C : You'd better blow before I'll let you drive anywhere.
B : Is that really necessary?
C : Yes.
B : OK then...  (brings out a plastic bag with a nozzle, and squeezes air from
it into the mouthpiece on the dash)
C : Come on, Bob, I wasn't born yesterday. That wasn't your breath. Would you
like me to call a cab for you?
B  ( stomps away from the car in a huff )

Freedom of Expression
---------------------

Well, what about the freedom of expression? Has an electronic book as much of a
right to exist as one printed on paper? When the director of datainspektionen
( Translator's note:  Datainspektionen  is a Swedish governmental institution
that regulates the permissible content and organization of computer
databases - to my knowledge, no comparable institution exists in the United
States) ,  Anitha Bondestam , stated that the somewhat childish text files
found on certain BBSs, which describe how to make bombs and weapons, could be
illegal  - did we examine this statement as critically as we would if she had
said that  books  describing similar contraptions could be illegal?

For your information, I can reveal that it is  in no way  illegal to write
books on bomb construction - provided that you do not encourage the reader to
apply this knowledge. (If you're in the military, and happen to write such a
manual for internal use, you might even get promoted.) It may be morally
questionable, especially considering that the readers are often teenagers, but
it is definitely not prohibited. A parallel would be  Hembränningsboken  ("The
Moonshine Manual"), which gives detailed instructions on how to make your own
hard liquor. This book is not illegal.  Datainspektionen  makes a lot of funny
statements which don't seem to have anything to do with their institutional
purpose.

Datainspektionen  does a lot of really good things. Above all, they protect
freedom of information and individual privacy, and the right to know in which
databases one is registered. The problem is that the institution sometimes
assumes the role of pontificator, which is not its purpose.

From where will a Swedish EFF originate? I would bet on its birth somewhere
among people that guard the freedoms of speech and the press.  Föreningen
Grävande Journalister  ("The Investigative Journalists' Association"), with
Anders R Olsson  at the lead, has long had an agenda reminiscent of the ideas
of EFF. As far as I can understand, this started with a book, written in 1985
by Anders Olsson, called  Spelrum  ("Playing Field"). In it, he describes the
complicated structure of government, and its desire to control the individual,
in a captivating and agitative manner. What William S. Burroughs says through
his fictional accounts, Anders Olsson articulates through non-fiction, to put
it simply. He doesn't construct his theories based on libertarian ideas about
individual freedom, but rather on a description of the  machine, which he
calls  Sweden, Inc., as a gigantic, dominating social mechanism built on
bureaucracy and the wish to control the individual.

Anders has also advocated that journalists should enlist the help of hackers to
enter, and examine, the proprietary computer systems of the government and
other organizations. As described in the previous chapter, this took place in
the case of the  Ausgebombt  BBS in Vänersborg. In his book  Yttrandefrihet
och Tryckfrihet  ("Freedom of Speech and the Press"), he considers it fully
justified to hack into computers owned by corporations, governmental
institutions, and other organizations, in order to obtain information of
public interest. He emphasizes that it is the  purpose  of the act, not the
act in itself, that is most important. In his opinion, the constitutional
(Swedish) protection of freedom of information, found in the articles on
freedom of speech and the press, protects the hacker while looking for
information with the intent of publicizing it.(4)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Remember the name  John Perry Barlow  - he is one of the greatest
visionaries and contemporary philosophers that I have encountered. Like Jean
Baudrillard, he belongs to the tiny number of people that have something
sensible to say about information society.

2. This concept is normally called simply "privacy".

3. Perhaps they have acquired better "experts" now.

4. Anders has recently published another book about freedom of information: IT
och det Fria Ordet - Myten om Storebror ("Information Technology and the Free
Word - the Myth of Big Brother"), where he shoes that the fear of oversight
can be used to conceal more than necessary; he defuses the paranoia
surrounding large databases, and shows that it is quite difficult to "know
everything about a person" through them. Instead, he points to another
danger - giving confidential privilege to information that should be public,
by maintaining that it is sensitive. He also defines four useful terms, which
I interpret as follows:

Freedom of Speech and of the Press : The right to express one's opinion in the
ether or in the media, without risking being silenced or prosecuted.

Privacy : The right to be free from intrusion into individual privacy by
government or other institutions of power. (Computer databases, drug testing,
etc.)

Freedom of Information : The right to stay informed of the internal structure
of governments or other institutions of authority. (For example: the Freedom
of Information Act). This right is especially important to journalists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 10: COMPUTER CRIME: TERMINAL SLAVES, CREDIT CARD FRAUD, AND CENSORSHIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What really constitutes a computer crime? Where is the line between harmless
exploration of a computer system and real crimes?

In the eyes of the law, computer crime is any type of crime involving a
computer in some way. If I hit somebody over the head with a computer, it
could theoretically be viewed as a computer crime. A more specific definition
would be that computer crime is the act of transferring or damaging
information in cyberspace without permission. This definition is accurate in
most cases. In Sweden, the authorities mostly concerned with computer crime
are:  the Police, the National Security Police (SÄPO), Military Intelligence
and Counter-espionage, the Crime Prevention Council (BRÅ), the Department of
the Interior, and Datainspektionen  (see the previous chapter for details on
this authority).

Additionally, other involved parties include the  security departments of the
large corporations,  a few  non-profit organizations ,  informal networks,
and (naturally)  criminal organizations . It is not surprising that all these
people view the problem in totally different ways.

The National Police Board classify computer crimes under the following
categories:

1. Computers or software used in the commission of a crime
2. Computers or software subjected to criminal tampering
3. Software that has been illegally copied or modified
4. Illegal entry into, or use of, computers or computer networks

Most computer crimes committed have nothing to do with hackers. Mostly, it
involves people at banks, the Postal Service, governmental insurance agencies,
or private corporations in charge of billing and payments. Many succumb to
temptation after seeing how  easy  it is to transfer money back and forth
between accounts, grant themselves financial aid or welfare payments,
falsifying invoices, etc. It is really only an "improvement" (exacerbation?)
in the old ways of economic crime. An example is a Swedish social worker who
gave himself 400,000 Swedish crowns (about $50,000) in welfare payments, and
then went to Venezuela to bail out a friend that had been jailed for political
activities. He was able to do this because he knew about some weakness in the
disbursement system: welfare payments were only reported every fortnight. This
is typical of the most extensive form of computer crime. Compared to this type
of crime, hacking and phreaking are a drop in the ocean. The worst computer
crimes are perpetrated by people in respectable positions, and are almost
never  exposed. But of course, you already knew this.

The reason that these crimes do not receive as much publicity as the hackers'
pranks is that the former relates to a very sensitive relationship: integrity
and loyalty within the company or the governmental institution is very
important for protection against external threats. It is, however, much more
difficult to ensure that one's employees are satisfied and loyal than blaming
hackers working from the outside. This principle has been used by entire
countries to avoid having to deal with internal problems. By shifting the
blame to, for example, Jews, communists, or Muslims, they can create a clear
picture of the threat and a target for aggression, while keeping attention
away from one's own problems.

The average age of the average computer criminal is between 30 and 40 years.
Half of the criminals have worked for more than 10 years within the company.
45% are women . Hackers? I don't think so. (Source: Nätvärlden #8, 1994, p. 36
[a Swedish computer networking magazine]).

So much for internal computer crime.

A more "hacker-like" crime is defrauding ATMs (cash machines) or credit card
companies. During the early period of ATMs in Sweden (1960's), when the
withdrawals were still logged on punchcards inside the machines, someone went
around and withdrew around 900,000 crowns (about $120,000) over Easter
holiday, using fake ATM cards. This is not as easy to do today. Perhaps. Many
Swedish hackers have access to the machines used to read and imprint the
magnetic strips on the cards. They have also ferreted out  a lot  of knowledge
about the nature of the information stored on these strips, mostly of general
interest to the system. It is, however, difficult to enter an ATM using
a "back door". The banks have developed their own telecommunications network
which is inaccessible by regular telephones, and it is through this system
that ATM transactions take place.

As for myself, I am constantly fascinated by people's trust in magnetic cards.
All cards with a magnetic strip, like ATM or credit cards, are standardized,
and can be copied using appropriate equipment. A friend of mine amused himself
by withdrawing money using his old credit card. He had simply copied the
information from his ATM card to the credit card. I was also not in the least
surprised to learn (in April 1995) that some youths in Helsingborg (a city in
southern Sweden) had reproduced local public transit cards and sold them at
half price. (Courtesy of the hacker named  Wolf , mentioned in chapter 4). The
telephone company's own phone cards are frightfully insecure; this is also
true of the cards used for cellular phones and satellite decoders. Often, it
is the case of a totally unprotected standard format.

Apropos cards:  Credit cards  are, unfortunately, very popular among hackers.
Let us take a look at some statistics from 1989, when there was about six to
seven million credit cards in Sweden. In this year, revenues from credit card
transactions reached a total of around 20-30 billion crowns (about $300
million), divided into about 50 million transactions averaging about 400
crowns ($50) each. 18,000 fraud cases were reported that year, in which each
report would cover about 50 instances of fraudulent use (i. e., somebody used
someone else's card about 50 times before it was reported). The police would
rather not investigate any cases involving less than 50,000 crowns ($6,000). I
can't even begin to speculate about today's figures. It is, however, unlikely
that those 18,000 crimes were committed solely by hackers.

It is often ridiculously simple to call for free or shop using someone else's
credit card. Previously, before stricter verification measures, many
hackers  "carded"  merchandise from abroad. Especially computer and other
electronic equipment, of course. I have already discussed how card numbers are
obtained through social engineering, dumpster diving, and other techniques. If
a phreaker cleans out your credit card, you will most likely never find out.
The credit card companies do not give out this information to their customers.
The most common explanation is  "a technical error".

With the exception of stealing credit card numbers and their associated codes,
hackers do not consider themselves to be in the business of computer crime. A
hacker considers computer crime to be one in which computers are used for the
purpose of acquiring anything besides information. A criminal using hacker
methods is therefore not a hacker, but a computer criminal. Traditional
hacking is about curiosity,  not  greed.

Sabotage
--------

Computer sabotage is a rare but venerable form of computer crime. The word
sabotage  is derived from the French word  sabot , which means "wooden shoe".
It originally refers to the time when French textile workers threw wooden
shoes into automatic weaving machines, because they were upset that machines
had stolen their jobs. An mechanized loom is in many ways similar to a
computer, so you could say that sabotage originally was computer sabotage.
This type of activity has been around since the English instigator  Ned Ludd
(and his  luddists ) destroyed looms and Spinning Jennys in the mid-18th
century.

Swedish anarchists have often threatened to sabotage computer centers.
(Especially through the underground magazine  Brand  ["Fire"].) Like most
anarchist threats, it's all talk. Swedish anarchists seem to have a hard time
finding and accessing computer centers, so they stick to destroying Shell gas
stations and other easily identified targets. The IRA, however, has bombed
some computers in Northern Ireland. In the U.S., as early as 1969, a group of
peace activists known as  Beaver 55  entered a computer system in Michigan,
erasing around 1,000 data tapes that supposedly contained blueprints for
chemical weapons. This was carried out with the help of ordinary magnets.

There was also a French activist group called  CLODO  (Comité de Liberation ou
de Detournement des Ordinateurs). Between 1979 and 1983, these activists
destroyed a number of computers in the Toulouse region. They wanted to protest
against a computer society in which (in their opinion) computers were used to
control people - direct descendants of the original  saboteurs , in good
French tradition. Groups like this make up the militant branch of the civil
rights movements to which EFF and Chaos Computer Club also belong.

The most frightening example of this type of activity is perhaps the  Unabomber
(Theodore Kaczynski), who carried out 16 bombings which, altogether, killed
three people and injured 23. On Wednesday, August 2, 1995, the  Washington
Post  and  The New York Times  published excerpts of a manifesto written by
Kaczynski, and which turned out to be a well-written argument against the
explosive growth of technology in modern society.

It is not only the hardware that can be subject to sabotage. Obviously,
programs and other information that is stored on a computer can be tampered
with. An editor at the  Encyclopedia Brittanica , in Chicago, became so angry
over being fired that he changed a great number of words in the encyclopedia.
Among others, he changed  Jesus  to  Allah . There are innumerable examples of
employees exacting revenge on their employers in a similar manner. Another
sabotage took place in Israel. By accessing an Israeli newspaper's computers,
a 19-year-old hacker managed to publish a false article about his computer
instructor being arrested and charged with drug-related crimes in the U.S. (A
rather amusing  hack , in my opinion, but still rather serious considering the
importance of mass media in our society. Compare this to  Captain Midnight ,
in chapter 4.)

Nazis
-----

Distributing (like the phreakers did) stolen credit card numbers and codes,
passwords for computer systems, and similar information, is - obviously -
illegal. Some BBSs, like  Ausgebombt , run classifieds for weapons, steroids,
and items that might well be "hot". They can also contain hard-core child or
violent pornography, or racist propaganda. Swedish nazis discovered technology
at an early stage, and frequently communicate electronically. At least one
organization that I know of, with ties to VAM ( Translator's Note:  VAM = Vitt
Ariskt Motstånd - "White Aryan Resistance", a Swedish white supremacist group,
and a bunch of freaking psychos. I just noticed that the English initials for
the organization would be "WAR"), have had guest speakers on computer-related
topics.

To be a racist, however, is not illegal. However, incitement to violence and
ethnic persecution are very illegal. I personally don't find this relevant to
a discussion about hackers. Most hackers are not racists, nor in the least
interested in steroids, stolen firearms, or child pornography. When it comes
to BBSs, you should follow the same rules that apply to the rest of society:
if you see something suspicious on a Swedish BBS, which could constitute a
prosecutable offense - call the police. Also keep in mind that those heavily
involved in a political movement like neo-nazism usually don't waste time and
effort starting and running BBSs without good reason. Before letting your
thoughts and actions be guided by hate and disgust, you should consider that
these people have often thought long and hard about what they are doing. Have
you?

Incitements to criminal action or spreading racist messages is equally illegal
whether it is carried out through computers, magazines, or leaflets. On the
Internet, most system administrators have enough of a sense of responsibility
to remove such garbage when they come across it. If you find something
suspicious on the Internet, it is usually simplest to find out who is
responsible for the computer on which the information is stored, and inform
them. Calling the Swedish police is usually pointless, since most of the
Internet exists abroad (primarily in the U.S.). In some countries, it isn't
even criminal to distribute racist information or similar stuff. In those
cases, the Swedish government is virtually powerless.

The only methods for an authority to contain information stored in another
country - with more lenient laws - are to either cut off the nation's computer
systems(1)  (which is neither easy nor desirable), or through international
legislation by the UN. But there is another way! The Internet is built by
people, for people, and functions through people.  You can give your honest
opinion to those responsible for distributing the information.  In the worst
cases, you can convince the person responsible for the computer on which the
information is stored to remove it. Before resorting to such measures,
however, you should think twice. Many view the Internet as a gigantic library,
and if you come up with ideas about "censoring" this library, you should
consider the fact that you are attacking free speech, and be prepared to take
responsibility for that. In such a case, your actions are comparable to going
into the nearest library, picking some books out of the shelves, taking them
out on the street and burning them.

Information technology has thus brought global problems to your desk at home.
How ironic. Now it is no longer possible to shut out world problems; you have
to  get involved . Dear God. Personally, I think this type of discussion is so
useful to ordinary Swedish society that it outweighs any threat posed by
this "dangerous" information. The problems of Sri Lanka and the Ivory Coast
are suddenly our problems as well. As long as child porn is permitted
somewhere in the world(2) , there will also be such material on our own
Internet. Such matters are  everyone 's problem, like environmental problems.
The problem should be solved in its home court: the World. The UN, perhaps.(3)

The Police
----------

The Swedish police - through the National police Board - have a computer crime
expert, superintendent  Hans Wranghult  in Malmö. He took his studies, as did
most European experts in this field, in California. His most prominent work is
a report called  Datorkriminalitet - Hackers, insiders, och datorstödd
brottslighet  ("Computer Crime - Hackers, Insiders, and Computer-Assisted
Crime"), which seems to be an edited version of his class notes from the
States, slightly adjusted to Swedish conditions. (I am holding my breath in
anticipation of his future creations.) Despite this report being a very
detailed treatment of computer crime and various perspectives relating to it,
it relays a very simplified picture of hackers. Apparently, Hans has listened
mostly to his teachers, and never asked any amateurs what they thought of
hackers. His section on hackers begins as follows:

"Originally, the word hacker was a label for the person who was responsible for
testing computer systems within the organization for which he worked. The
method used was to subject the system to all kinds of attacks, in order to
spot errors or weaknesses in the software or the security systems."

This statement is not true, since the first hackers were students in charge of
developing  computer systems, and the statement is indicative of a basic view
of hackers as always being busy testing or cracking security systems. If you
have read this book from the beginning, you know that this is a fairly small
aspect of hacking culture. Another possibility is that Wranghult is
simplifying intentionally, in order to motivate his men. The police base their
work on a dichotomous "us-against-them" style of thinking, and if he had
started talking about good hackers as well as bad ones, the limits of the
law's thinking (with regards to hackers) would perhaps have become a little
fuzzy.

He is especially critical of the image of the hacker as a hero, which is
blasphemy in his opinion. If he had known how journalists employ hackers, as
when Chaos Computer Club hacked into information about the West German nuclear
power program, or when the anonymous hacker exposed the  Ausgebombt  BBS, he
would have been forced to reconsider his vilification of hacker activities.
Apparently the police have thought twice about this, because in June of 1995,
they announced that they would be happy to enlist the help of hackers to
combat computer crime.

In regards to S Ä PO's interest in hackers and computer culture, there is not a
lot of available information. This is not unusual, since it's how things work.
Bengt Angerfelt  and  Roland Frenzell  are in charge of computer security
issues at SÄPO, and their work probably consists mostly of gathering
information and knowledge about computer crimes, so that someone will know
what to do if there is a threat to national security. Hopefully, they know
more about computer security than anyone else in Sweden. Considering the
fiasco with the encryption system, they should have improved their expertise
by now.

Military intelligence is also interested (naturally) in computer security
issues. I know even less about this - but the only thing I know for sure is
well-known among hackers: military intelligence collects as much information
as they can about system and data security. This information is then used to,
among other things, improve  their own  security. No military person would
ever have the urge to bring this knowledge to the state or the business world.
There are some obvious reasons for this. Business in general, and especially
the computer companies, are concerned with the security of their equipment.
For example, if the American NSA (National Security Agency) informed a company
that manufactured a certain operating system of their system's security gaps,
these would immediately be fixed.  Why is this not in the interest of military
intelligence?  Very simple, really: since the software systems are exported,
the military can use the security weaknesses to attack foreign computer
systems in case of war. The military (at least in the U.S.) has its own
hackers and virus creators. I mean, why not? These weapons are hardly
controversial, and not limited by international agreements. Of course, they're
armed to the teeth with tools for electronic warfare. By being aware of
security glitches, one can protect oneself and attack others. For the same
reason, Swedish intelligence would never advise Ericsson about faults in the
AXE systems.

A number of Sweden's best hackers have been hired as security experts by SÄPO
as well as military intelligence and counter-espionage agencies.(4)  Probably,
this expertise is used in "bugging" electronic communications (which is not
illegal, in contrast to telephone surveillance).

Big Brother Wants to See You
----------------------------

But what about the distribution of information that may be "dangerous to the
public"? It is not as intuitive to propose that information such as  The
Terrorist's Handbook, drug recipes, bomb blueprints,  or perhaps  technical
information about telephone cards  should be illegal. A popular term for this
is - strangely -  sociopathic information . To be a sociopath means to exhibit
aggressively antisocial behavior, and belonging to a group that does not
accept current social norms.

Therefore, hackers, ravers, anarchists, Freemasons, and other subgroups can be
viewed as sociopathic. So can Rotary. Sociopathic information, therefore, is
information that is written by socially maladjusted people. For example,
spreading liberal ideas in a totalitarian communist country would have to be
considered very sociopathic. It is not against the law to be socially
maladjusted. It isn't even prohibited to distribute sociopathic information.
However, there are a few authoritarian elements in our society that would like
this to be so. During my research for this book, I have fortunately only found
one example of this Big Brother attitude:

In a funky report from  Institutet för Rättsinformatik  ("The Institute for
Legal Information"), attorney  Anders Wallin  tells us how  he  thinks the law
views sociopathic information. In around 50 pages, he manages the feat of
repeatedly condemning so-called sociopathic information, while failing to
mention even once that this information is actually not illegal. Rather, he
leans on a legal paradigm that views anything that threatens society as it is
today as dangerous, by definition. Imposed on ideology, this would be called
conservatism. Wallin mentions, among other things, that he hasn't been able to
find the sociopathic  The Anarchist's Cookbook  in any Swedish library, and
goes on to lament the fact that similar information  is  available on several
Swedish databases. What he doesn't mention, however, is that this book has
been  cleared  for publication. If you want to read a really sociopathic book,
go find  Jerry Rubin's Do It! , which is available at many Swedish libraries.
It also happens to be published by the respectable publisher Pan/Nordstedts.
The list can be made longer.

Apparently, sociopathic information is a term applied to books that normal
people shouldn't read, because if they do, they will become corrupt.
Alternatively: books that youth shouldn't read, or they will become corrupt.
Or: books that not everyone should read, for their judgment cannot be trusted
(as for myself, I am rather childishly fond of the freedom of the press). At
the same time, I have to say that I don't think that everything in Wallin's
report is bad. What I find erroneous is the implicit call for censorship that
exists between the lines of this report. Wallin thinks it's horrible that
young boys should be able to read hacker books and terrorism manuals. And I
understand him - there are those who have managed to cause great damage using
knowledge found in such material. Apparently, someone in the U.S. managed to
blow up their little sister. I am not blind to such things. But Wallin has
obviously  read this material himself...

This drives cyberpunks up the wall, and is regarded - justifiably - as
authoritarianism. The final responsibility for prohibiting teenagers from
building bombs at home should be with the parents. And if the kids are old
enough to have left the nest, I would consider them worthy of our trust.
Actually, I believe they can handle reading these books, if they find it
amusing. I happen to consider a person that manufactures a bomb at home to
have more than one loose screw, and not at all a reason to abrogate the rights
of normal people to free speech and press. I willingly confess: I own oogles
of sociopathic information. Yep, it's true. I have, among other things, used
them for research of this book. Almost all of the information I possess is in
a digital form, and because I like to, I distribute it with abandon, which I
consider not at all irresponsible.

Making Computer Viruses Illegal??
---------------------------------

Prohibiting the manufacture of computer viruses is also questionable.
Especially since there aren't any plans to criminalize  possession  of
computer viruses - only their creation. Can I not produce a computer virus and
infect my own computer if I feel like it? This seems strange, in my opinion. A
relevant fact is that you could make a computer virus with paper and pencil,
if you wanted to. It is not until it is fed into a computer and distributed
that it can cause damage.(5)

Big Brother: What do you want to make viruses for? There's no good in that.
Don't do it. Don't do it, I tell you. Why are you writing poems? Where's the
good in that? Don't. Go to the factory instead, and do some work. Be of use, I
tell you.

On the other hand, I agree that the intentional distribution of computer
viruses should be criminal. The debate has been going on in the U.S., where,
for example, the well-known virus fighter  Alan Solomon  (known as  Dr
Solomon ) has clearly stated that he would consider a ban on virus
manufacturing as violating the rights and freedoms of the individual.
Furthermore, a virus can not be accurately compared to a bomb, since an
isolated computer with a virus on it poses no public threat. Especially if the
user know what he or she is doing, which is usually the case when it comes to
virus makers. Additionally, a virus does not consist of something tangible
(like chemicals or metal), but only of pure information. A computer virus  can
be constructed through a series of commands written on a piece of paper; it is
simply a case of the same information in different forms. Thus, a virus on
paper would be legal since we have freedom of the press, while a virus in
machine-readable form would be illegal since we do not have freedom of
information? Aren't they the same thing?

Our modern Trojan horse, in the form of a computer virus, will most likely meet
the same end as  Karl Gerhard 's play  Den ökända hästen från Troja  ("The
Notorious Trojan Horse), which was quickly and definitively banned as it
criticized the Nazi infiltration of Sweden in the 1940's. Unwanted art should
not be exhibited (in the interest of the State), and you do not at all know
best what to do with your computer (sarcasm ;-).

"Datainspektionen" and Integrity
--------------------------------

The vanguard of the computer crime-fighting forces in Sweden consists of
Datainspektionen . This governmental agency's primary purpose is ensuring that
state institutions and corporations follow  Datalagen  (the Swedish Data
Code), which has been constructed specifically to protect the individual from
a totalitarian information society. Datainspektionen was born in 1973 as a
product of an international public debate with its origins in San Francisco.
In connection with the Census of 1970, when for the first time all data was
electronically registered, many had begun drawing parallels to  George
Orwell's  1984 , and this gave birth to a debate about data integrity. The
insinuation was that government, to a certain extent, was collecting
information that they had no legitimate use for, and which could be used to
control citizens in every aspect.(6)

The former director of Datainspektionen,  Jan Freese , who still seems to exert
considerable influence on the agency, is an important philosopher in the
field. In practice, it seems that much of what Jan writes or speaks is adopted
by Datainspektionen without further discussion. This is not so bad, since the
guy mostly displays common sense. He has made several sound propositions for
information legislation, and prepared Swedish society for the information
revolution to a great degree. Especially good is his proposition of a  general
integrity law , covering databases containing information on individuals and
privacy violations, whether or not computers and electronics are involved.
This law should, according to Freese, regulate (quoted from  Datateknik
#8/1995):

* Access to and searches of private property
* Physical searches of persons, medical check-ups, and psychological tests
* Surveillance/espionage
* Illegal photography/recordings
* Electronic surveillance ("bugging")
* Distribution of privileged information
* Use of third parties' names, images, and similar information
* Abuse of third parties' communications

And this is also basically the kind of record-keeping that the EFF,
cypherpunks, and others are working against. The difference, in the case of
cypherpunks, is that they are of the opinion that the regime (in the US) has
totally failed to protect the integrity of the individual. They even suggest
that the government cannot handle these matters without becoming totalitarian.
Thus , the individual should protect him- or herself through cryptography,
anonymity measures, etc. The libertarian heritage is apparent, based on the
American pioneers, who had to protect their farms and land with their own arms
since the legal system was not fully established. That time is so far back in
Swedish history that it's become foreign to us. We are used to government
taking care of everything.

The reason that more and more people arm themselves with encryption is that
the electronic parallel universe, cyberspace, is barbaric and uncivilized, and
that even government employees appear to act instinctively and arbitrarily
with regards to computers. If an integrity protection law like the one
proposed by Freese had existed at an earlier stage, the problem would be
absent. However, note the following:  Datainspektionen is subordinate to the
executive branch of the Swedish Congress. If the government gets the urge to
register all political dissidents, Datainspektionen cannot do anything about
it, despite it being written into law that the executive should consult
Datainspektionen before creating any database on its own initiative.
Datainspektionen is  in no way  a safeguard against a totalitarian society!
Only those who blindly trust institutions and governments would dare to rely
on Datainspektionen for this purpose.

From hacking to computer crime
------------------------------

Can hacking lead to crime? The answer is a clear YES. Hacker groups, like any
other, have their share of psychopaths and deviant followers. Social
engineering in itself must be considered a giant step away from social norms.
It  is  dishonest to deceive other people, and viewing the person at the other
end of the phone line as an object is frighteningly cold-blooded. Some
phreakers have constructed blue boxes that they've sold for around $1500, and
this activity is clearly not rooted in ideology.

Phreakers defend their criminal activity in the classical manner: first of all,
only large corporations are victimized. Losses from credit card fraud against
private individuals are usually absorbed by the issuing banks. At the same
time, they nonchalantly ignore the fact that they create a hell of a hassle
for the individuals who have to prove to the credit card companies that they
didn't use their cards themselves. The elitist attitude often becomes an
excuse to do whatever one feels like. At the same time, it should be noted
that media as well as credit card companies exaggerate the consequences of
being subject to credit card fraud. Even credit card company investigators can
think, and generally understand that a well-educated father of two doesn't
make repeated conference calls across half the world just for the hell of it.
Many investigations are dismissed at an early stage.

Second, hackers often point to the fact that they don't derive any  material
gain  from hacking. Hackers are known for breaking into phone companies and
stealing  only  manuals. This, of course, confuses prosecutors. A hacker does
not fit tour stereotype of a criminal who absconds with other people's
property for their own gain. For an hacker hungry for information, the crime
itself  is the reward, which may seem a little odd.

Manufacturing a computer virus, or spraying graffiti on a concrete wall, does
not offer much in the way of profit. Possibly it could be sabotage or
vandalism, but it is not a matter of organized crime. Perhaps virus
manufacturing is, like graffiti, best viewed as an unpopular form of art; a
product of our time, in which everything artistic must be sanctioned, planned,
and spontaneity virtually extinguished.

Hacking a network is more a matter of  exploring  the system than  stealing
system time. In some countries, like Canada, it is permitted to walk into
another persons house, look around, and leave, as long as nothing is stolen or
damaged. From an ethical perspective, it is a tricky problem. In the
Netherlands it was, until 1987, completely legal to enter a computer as long
as nothing was destroyed or modified.(7)

Third, they defend their acts on ideological grounds - by which society is
described as generally corrupt, and the real crooks are the large corporations
and currency traders, who manipulate all of humanity to run their errands
through their speculation. The opposite is the beauty of established society,
as  Oscar Wilde  once expressed it: It is better to live unjustly, than
without justice.

In this view, it is permissible to speak and theorize about making society more
just, while direct action must be regarded as illegal, from a social
perspective. It is the same principle that covers all undemocratic actions -
whether it concerns those of hackers, environmentalists, or peace activists.
If you break the law, you commit a crime. Period. Personally, I think that any
activists who break the law, be it hackers or cyberpunks as well as
tree-huggers, peace activists, or anti-abortionists who blow up abortion
clinics,  should  be sentenced and jailed if society deems it necessary. It is
not the responsibility of society to decide which values serve to justify
illegal acts. My opinion, on the other hand, is due to the fact that I firmly
believe in humankind's ability to achieve results in a representative
democracy.(8)  Anarchists, on the other hand, conclude that there should be no
laws at all. (Which  I  can't really agree with). It's a question of values,
and in our present society, un-legitimized actions are considered criminal. If
those actions victimize individuals, they're misdirected.

It's been submitted that hackers could form entire underground syndicates and
cooperate with the Mafia. This is, so far, mere speculation. In my opinion,
the hacker mentality is not really fit for organized crime. The hacker
immediately retreats when he/she feels physically threatened, and removed from
his/her protected existence behind the screen. This doesn't mean that he or
she is  chicken , but rather that the whole thing is "for fun".

Many hackers receive strange requests like  "you who are so technically
skilled, couldn't you build a pirate decoder... ", "couldn't you (whatever)" ,
The fact is that even though the hackers definitely  can  do this, they very
seldom do. Hackers are anti-authoritarian and detest being bossed
around.  "Figure it out on your own!"  is the most frequent answer. The hacker
doesn't want some subordinate role as technical genius in some criminal
organization. Why should he? He could make a lot more money in a  low-paid
computer job than any criminal organization could offer, with the possible
exception of the Mafia or foreign intelligence agencies. However, they are
often willing to give advice, tips, and ideas:  "Are you stuck?", "Have you
found anything interesting?"  - but as far as economic motivation (not
curiosity) is concerned - forget it.

I would go so far as to say that we should be grateful that the little annoying
hackers discovered security glitches in the computer systems, rather than the
big fish . During the golden age of phreakers (in the 70s), several large
gambling syndicates used blue boxes, which they manufactured on a
near-industrial scale and sold at usurious rates. You can hold any opinion you
want about this, but no one can deny that the hackers' activities have been
important  to industry, if not always  beneficial . (Otherwise they wouldn't
have become such a popular topic). When Bob in Springfield makes his own phone
cards and sells them for $20-$100, this is hardly to be considered
industrial-scale production or even production for his own gain. Considering
the simple equipment used in the process, and the time spent on constructing
it, it would more closely resemble a total loss. It would, therefore, seem to
exist an ideological reason for constructing the phone cards. Freedom of
information? Anarchy?

Personally, I would have to say that the "hardware viruses" in the form of an
electronic device called  Big Red , found in some American and Australian
banking computers, are much more frightening than anything  any  hacker has
ever  invented. This thing copies, encrypts, and hides important information
on a computer's hard drive so that some informed people can easily access it.
Big Red could very well be constructed by the Mafia or some international
intelligence agency. These must have been deliberately installed from the
inside  of an organization, as opposed to the hacker's curiosity-driven
exploits.

As of July 1995, an unusually sophisticated computer theft ring was still
operating in Sweden. They entered offices and only stole computers, not
monitors or keyboards (these were cut off). From some older models, only
memory chips and hard drives were taken. In order to work undisturbed, the
gang cut the telephone company's alarm cables by gong through access boxes on
the street, in the way the hackers of the film  Sneakers  did it. The gang
communicated via radio, and the police even succeeded in taping their
communications. Still, they weren't caught.

There's no doubt as to the origin of these thieves. Some of them are definitely
some type of hacker, others are more hardened techno-criminals. The similarity
to Gibson's characters is striking: the only loot is information technology,
memory is worth its weight in gold, and the criminals possess fantastic
technical skills. I will not for one second deny that these offenders have
learned many of their skills used in their ventures through different hacker
magazines: Rolig Teknik, Phrack, any number of books from small, obscure
publishers. (And certainly, from common textbooks). But this is actually not
the problem.

The problem is  us.  The problem is that we watch movies like  Sneakers, The
Saint, Why Me?  etc., in which we can identify with the romantic or comical
criminal, despite the fact that we objectively judge such a person to be the
enemy of society and scum deserving of all that is coming to them. We need the
criminal, or in this case, the  technologically advanced criminal , to know
that it's still possible to circumvent all electronic security systems.
Because - if we can't escape technological supervision, well, then we  can't
become lawless, and then being lawful is no longer a free choice. There is no
longer any anti-career that we can look down upon in our eternal quest to jet
upwards through the social hierarchy. There is no honor to preserve, because
if no one can be dishonorable, one cannot know what it means to be honorable.
Crime exists in the form of an engine that drives us to act straight, warns us
if we approach the edge of propriety, and makes us feel content with our
successful lives. We, of course, do not run around at night, cutting cables,
and stealing computers, do we? We work during the days and  sleep  at night.
Each day needs its night. Every society's glowing, law-abiding segment needs
its photophobic underground movement.

We award our geniuses two types of careers. Either they go through twelve years
of high school and four years of college to become engineers and continue
their careers upwards or sideways in the chase for  more  status,  more
money, and  more  exciting work projects. (Imagine, I could be CEO one day...
I'll have to read up on some finance too... make the right contacts, hold the
right opinions...). But what if you don't like school? What if the awfully
long education bores you, but your interest is still burning for electronic
devices and computers? No problem. Society has something for you too:
vocational  education,  no  status,  no  money, and  no  exciting work
projects like PLEX programming or control system construction. You will never
go to the right schools, know the right people, or read the right books. You
won't have the correct social heritage.  This is despite the fact that you are
perhaps intelligent and capable and would be more suitable for Ericsson's
training programs than anyone else!  The hiring practices at high-tech
companies are tastefully oriented towards turning non-degreed applicants back
to the slums they came from.

Remaining option: anti-career. Use your knowledge to break down society's
security systems so that the poor citizens will know it's not invulnerable.
Give them something to fight and live for. Give them an external threat so
that they won't have to take a look in the mirror. Be an outlaw to set the
parameters for the lawful. Don't think that crime doesn't pay - sometimes it
does. Just as long as a few get caught now and then so that the good people
will have something to abhor.

Your criminals are the devils that let you see the angels within yourselves.
I'll be damned if they're any worse than you!(9)

Corporate Security Forces
-------------------------

One of the most unpleasant computer crimes I know of was committed (and perhaps
is still being committed) by  Telia . In April 1995, the electronic magazine
Z Central  (a subsidiary of Z-mag@zine) made public that Telia possessed its
own net surveillance unit, which had as its mission to gather information
about subscribers suspected of being phreakers or hackers. Using phone-switch
computers, they could easily record who made what calls and where. It seems
that Telia systematically traced and surveilled some hackers, which really is
something that only the cops have a right to do. This information was further
distributed to other companies which Telia suspected of having been
infiltrated by these hackers. These procedures are illegal, according to the
fourth section of the Data Code, which prohibits registering information
concerning possible criminality without the prior permission of
Datainspektionen. Permission is almost never granted - in order to prevent
totalitarian social control.

It should be added that this discussion about Telia's phone usage registration
is not a new one. As early as 1981, Telia had an electronic surveillance
machine named  TAL-T M80 , which permitted the logging of all usage on a
particular line, and could send the log to a central computer for storage.
Since then, Telia has introduced this type of surveillance to virtually any
phone in Sweden, since this function is built into every AXE switch. In
reality, anything you do using a phone is recorded by the AXE switch. If you
pick up the phone and then dial  one  digit before hanging up, this action is
registered as a time and a button-press in a computer. Telia is then able to
retrieve a complete listing of all calls and non-calls performed -  anything
that has taken place on the line. The information, according to Telia, is used
to assess and improve existing systems, and to resolve disputes with
subscribers. The info is stored on computer tape for about six months.(10)

Anyone that has worked for a large corporation will understand why Telia can't
resist registering and analyzing its business. However, distributing such
information is against telecommunications as well as privacy laws. Telia, of
course, acted in "good faith" in its attempt to "help" the victimized
companies, but that doesn't excuse the breach of privacy involved. I've even
seen indications that Telia use their databases for various purposes within
the company. The information is ruthlessly consulted by Telia's security
departments when they suspect hacker activity, in order to extract information
from hackers about their possible transgressions. (In many cases, Telia's own
computers suffer from inadequate security.(11) ) This takes place despite the
fact that this information is not even supposed to be available to the
police...

To facilitate computer crime-fighting, they've begun to investigate the
possibility of constructing a so-called  expert system , an artificially
intelligent agent instructed to analyze the bands in which all Swedish phone
calls are registered, in the search for  behavior patterns  that seem suspect.
This involves checking out people that make long and frequent calls without
interruptions, call a lot of toll-free numbers, etc., in order to compile a
database of "suspicious" subscribers. Hopefully, Telia does not intend to use
the system, since this would imply a completely illegal data-handling
procedure. But what price is too high to maintain security?

Telia serves as an example for large corporations' views on computer crime. Of
those crimes committed against Telia's technological installations, 87%
consist of theft and vandalism, while computer intrusion and technical
manipulation makes up about 10%. The latter category includes hackers' and
phreakers' activities, but also a great deal of other activity that has
nothing to do with those underground groups. ( But,  since hackers have a
definable culture and system of ethics, they're easier to point out and
condemn). In addition, Telia is a company that suffers from an almost paranoid
fear that someone will understand how their systems work. All communications
companies feel this way. Since the technological safeguards at Telia's
switches are inadequate, they rely on a  psychological  form of protection,
which simply means that information is kept secret so that a possible attacker
cannot know how the systems work. In the same manner, it protects its own
organization, its own internal phone numbers, etc. Even  within  the
organization, safeguards are in place. They are diligent about not giving any
more information than necessary to operators. There is no comprehensive
understanding of Telia's systems except among CEOs, high-level engineers, and
system developers. The only road to those positions lies in internal
advancement. Knowledge in regards to Telia's systems is therefore only
supposed to exist within the organization, and no one outside Telia should
know anything about how the switches really work.  Hands-off , as opposed
to "hands-on", that is. Just use the system. Don't ever try to figure out how
it works, even if you're interested. Do not examine, do not rummage among the
cables, just  call, pay,  and  be happy!

The reason that Telia has its own security organization is that the police has
neither the time nor the funding to investigate Telia's problems. (As I
mentioned earlier, they are reluctant to investigate fraud amounting to less
than $8000 or so). Telia has officially said that the company needs about 30
security managers plus about 10 or so specialists within the areas of physical
security, system security, data processing, secrecy, and information security.
The last category is the one that is supposed to make sure that I, among
others, should not know the information contained in the previous sentence.
(These figures, however, originate in the time when Telia was still called
Televerket, and had to release information because of the freedom of
information laws). Presumably, the information security officials now have a
structured organization which ensures that potentially dangerous information
does not leave the company or end up in public records.

Another thing, which should be completely made clear, is that large
corporations like Telia cannot afford morals. Once they have discovered fraud
affecting the company, they first have to decide whether it pays off to go
after the criminals and improve security before taking any action. If
improving security poses too much of an inconvenience for legitimate users,
resulting in loss of customers, it is more cost-effective to let the hackers
be. This has led to many hackers raising their eyebrows and wondering whether
the communications companies are laid back, stupid, or just plain moronic. In
reality, their only concern is money. That's why it's still so easy to call
using fake credit card numbers - it is simply too expensive to effectively
address the problem.

At this point, allow me to make a connection. When I spoke of cyberpunk, I
mentioned that William Gibson et. al. chronicle a future in which all finance
and development is handled by large corporations, with a strictly hierarchical
organization and a ridiculously strenuous work ethic. In the R&D labs, new
technological innovations are pushed out by bored engineers with their fingers
constantly on the fast-forward button. Everything in the organization of these
companies is designed to make the people inside the hierarchy feel as
important as possible, so that they will work as effectively as possible and
push their underlings to work even harder. The result is a frighteningly
effective but psychopathic organization, which can push social development
beyond any imaginable limits.

Those hackers that have been forced to enter Telia's regional offices in the
capacity of informers, have - with awe - described the rigorous security
procedures. They have passed many doors, all with flashing diodes and
demanding access cards to prevent the wrong person from being in the wrong
place at the wrong time. At the very top of the building, there are the
offices of the highest executives, after a total of perhaps five doors that
all require pass codes. The hierarchy demands that the offices gain size as
they gain altitude. At the top, they are posh. This is the final goal of all
the residents of the building. The denizens of the lower levels of this tower
of power are not allowed to pass through as much as half the doors leading to
the top level. In this manner, the eternal desire to climb to the top is
preserved.

The hacker is called to this place. The man on the other side of the desk is
not evil. He is not inhuman, psychopathic, or simply cruel. He is diligent. He
believes in the ten stories of concrete through which the hacker has just been
transported. He has been, for his entire life since leaving the university, a
part of this hierarchy. Since he is a CEO, he has been among those displaying
the greatest loyalty and faithfulness to the company and the entire social
system which has enabled it to exist. He can not, for the life of him, imagine
that any of this could be based on an incorrect assumption - that there could
be anything wrong with the market economy system, a giant wheel in which he
himself is but a tiny, tiny cog. Somewhere deep inside, he retains a small
illusion of freedom and independence which he nurtures tenderly.

He has a lot of respect for the hacker. The 20-year-old on the other side of
the table managed, after all, to breach all the walls he has built. And the
hacker didn't accomplish this through violence, but through intelligence. He
manipulated Telia's computers. He was one step ahead of Telia's own security
teams. The boss is impressed. But at the same time he knows, based on his
fundamental appreciation of the society which lets him live in a plush
two-story house with a housewife, two kids, and two cars, that this kid is
wrong. The boy is a criminal, and should be treated like one. He knows that he
is dealing with a dangerous individual. He has completely swallowed the myth
of the hacker as a cold-blooded, anarchistic antagonist. It his  him , the
Chief of Security, who is right. The concrete, the desk, the condo, the
market, the school system... all of these back him up. Of course he's right.
How else are things supposed to work?

Of course, he has to know how the kid did it. Since he knows that he's right,
he feels entitled to use any means available. In the concrete chambers in
Göteborg, Farsta, and Kalmar, his devoted servants stand at attention -  IBM
3081 d, AS/9000, Sperry 1100/92 -  computers that obey his every command. Even
before the hacker was brought to the office, he had lists printed of all the
calls that this individual had made during the last six months. An exhaustive
list, with dates and times down to the second.  So he called his girlfriend in
the middle of the night after a two-hour call to a toll-free number in the
States? Why? Is she involved as well?  It'll be a long interrogation. The
hacker on the other side of the desk doesn't know that the list that is about
to be put in front of his nose by Telia's security chief is totally useless
from a legal point of view. Nothing is witnessed or signed; only five calls
have been traced. These calls constitute the only binding evidence.

The hacker, with his boring middle-class background, looks across the table and
straight into the eyes of the impressive boss. He locks gazes with Gibson's
psychopathic Tessier-Ashpool concern. He sees the enormous company's pulsating
brain sitting in front of him, dressed in Lacoste pants and a white shirt. The
question is whether he understands this.

The BBS that Vanished
---------------------

Let's imagine that a group of cyberpunks, in the near future, create a BBS
named  Pheliks  to spread information using a powerful personal computer with
several telecommunications lines. Stored on this BBS is pirated software, drug
recipes, anarchist pamphlets, in-depth descriptions of Telia's AXE switches,
documentation for smart credit cards, and much more. The software industry,
spearheaded by Microsoft, are pissed. The credit card companies, spearheaded
by Visa and Mastercard, are pissed. The police, wishing to maintain order,
knows that this is against the law and feels compelled to act. Unfortunately,
the cyberpunks are aware of the possible countermeasures of the police and
other authorities, and have implemented their own counter-countermeasures.
When the authorities call up the BBS they are greeted by the following
message:

Pheliks BBS - open 24 hours at 28.800 bps.

NOTE: Pheliks BBS is open to amateurs. Police, journalists, researchers, or
other persons in an official capacity, as well as business persons or
representatives of non-profit organizations, are NOT WELCOME. If you belong to
any of these categories, we humbly but firmly ask you to terminate your
connection to Pheliks BBS. Press ENTER to confirm that you do not belong to
any of the above categories. Press +++ath0 to terminate the connection.

Through this messages, paragraph 21 of the data code is invoked, with the
result that anyone not complying with the request is guilty of a computer
crime. In this way, every form of electronic search is made impossible, and
the BBS is not threatened by governmental agencies or research institutes,
which are bound to stay within the law.  Journalists  could in this case
appeal to their moral right, as a third power of the State, to breach the data
code in the public interest. The software companies, in the form of Business
Software Alliance, would also (most likely) not give a shit about the data
code and proceed despite the message. After a scoop in the papers, combined
with repeated anonymous tips (read: lobbying) from the BSA, and combined with
some sort of surveillance indicating that there might even be illegal drugs in
the same location as the BBS, the police could raid the BBS after all.

However, the cyberpunks have predicted this scenario as well. When the cops
bring the BBS computer to the station, they find that the part of the hard
drive containing the BBS's information has been encrypted with the
Securedrive  program. This software uses 128-bit DES encryption, known to be
uncrackable. To encrypt your hard drive is perfectly legal - businesses do it
to protect confidential information from theft, and as opposed to everyday
locks, encryption cannot be opened by force. At the same time the police
turned the computer off, it became useless as evidence. For investigative
reasons, of course, the cops could keep the computer for a century or so, and
in this manner prevent the suspicious activity from recurring. Unfortunately,
computers are not that expensive. Even before the investigation has begun, the
well-organized cyberpunks have gotten a new computer and restored the entire
BBS from tape backups stored in a totally separate location. Companies use the
same method to protect valuable information from theft, fire, or hardware
malfunction.

The police can then, given reasonable cause, install surveillance equipment and
record the traffic to and from the BBS, record cyberpunks keystrokes, etc., in
order to make a successful bust. But this is very expensive, and there has to
be a good reason for such measures. It is also probably that the software
companies resort to illegitimate measures. Perhaps they retain a samurai
hacker, like the computer cowboy Case in Gibson's novels, to enter the BBS and
crash it on the orders of the company. Perhaps some company manages to
convince Telia to shut down the BBS's phone lines. In this way, established
society can protect itself against the cyberpunks, and maintain the ideals
that have been threatened.

The real danger occurs when too many groups like that appear, hiding from
governments and companies, or form an organized, nationwide base. The worst
thing that can happen is that the BBS moves to an unknown address on the
Internet, possibly in Taiwan or Chile. If you can afford to rent space on a
computer on the other side of the world (which probably is cheaper than having
your own), there are no problems with maintaining such an operation from
Sweden. This is when the cyberpunks can go from information syndicate to
broad, underground, political movement. And this is the real threat to
established society. It is not certain that it is a threat to society from a
historical perspective. I will return to this question.(12)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. German authorities took this approach in trying to shut down  Radikal , an
extreme-leftist magazine, which - intelligently enough - has stored their
files on a computer in Holland. The endeavor became a fiasco: about thirty
supporters copied the documents to their own computers, with the result that
Germany would have to disconnect the entire world to get rid of  Radikal .

2. Japan, for example, has a very liberal view of material that people in
Sweden would most likely put in the category of child pornography.

3. I am not fond of international governmental organizations except as forums
for discussion. As such, they excel. On the question of international
retaliations and such, I am undecided.

4. I. e., computer crime sometimes pays - if you're the baddest.

5. Some may object to me defining this in my own terms. This is because there
is no legal framework within which to discuss the issue.

6. I am greatly indebted to Anders R Olsson for many of the details regarding
the origins of the Data Code and the inception of Datainspectionen.

7. This is probably the reason that Europe's largest hacking magazine,
Hacktic , is based in Holland. The hackers later started an Internet company
called XS4ALL, which is one of the largest and most controversial Dutch
internet providers.

8. On the other hand, I don't think that this type of government is ideal, nor
that it will last in the future.

9. In case you are wondering: yes, I've studied social psychology as well.

10. I have obtained this information from an anonymous technician at Telia.
Ronnie Bjarnfält, at Telia National Security, claims that the logs are
normally only kept for 24 hours. I have personally seen logs comprising three
months of telephone traffic.

11. Anonymous hacker in october 1996: "I am inside Telia's firewall again...
they installed a new one that was much better, but I got around it..."

12. All "fictional" events in this episode have occured in reality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------
Chapter 11: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
-----------------------------------

Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) are frequent in many contexts,
not least in those that are treated in this book. That's why I've given AI a
chapter of its own.

AI is a multi-disciplinary science, encompassing electronics, computer science,
psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion, medicine, and mathematics. This
is by no means an exaggeration; creating AI entails knowing how "normal"
intelligence works, which is easier said than done - since the only object we
know with certainty to be intelligent is the human brain. AI ultimately
concerns the study of behavioral sciences in order to build models based on
natural science. Our intelligence, it has been discovered, is strongly
connected to our way of knowing the world, or our perception.

AI research is a hot item at the universities, and not without reason: for the
first time in history, there is money to be made in AI. Companies that are
increasingly employing electronic means for communication and administration
are in need of computer programs to handle routine tasks, like sorting
electronic mail or maintaining inventory. So-called intelligent agents are
marketed, customized for various standardized electronic tasks. From a cynical
perspective, one could say that industry for the first time can replace
thinking humans with machines in areas no one had thought could be automated.
(I should add that it can hardly be called automation, since the truly
intelligent programs actually think, as opposed to just acting according to a
list of rules).

There is a number of approaches and orientations within AI. Among the most
prominent there are: expert systems (large databases containing specific
knowledge), genetic algorithms (simulated evolution of mathematical formulas,
for example, to suit a certain purpose), and neural networks (imitation of the
organizational structure of the brain, using independent, parallel-processing
nerve cells). As information databases like those on the Internet become
larger and more numerous, agents can work directly with the information
without having to understand people. Why assign a person to do research when
you might as well let an agent do it, more quickly and for less money?
(Whoever has ever looked for information on the Internet will realize how
useful a more intelligent search tool would be).

There is also research in the field of artificial life, which really
are "living" organisms that live and reproduce in computer systems. Computer
viruses constitute one form of artificial life, albeit somewhat
unsophisticated and destructive. Artificial life has hitherto not achieved any
substantial success. (Unless you want to view computer viruses and all the
companies and consultants that make a living fighting them as a success - they
have evidently boosted GNP). Research in the field of artificial life began
with a program called Life, by John Conway, and was a mix between a computer
game and calculated simulation. Bill Gosper, hacker at MIT, became virtually
obsessed with this simulation. Later on, it was improved and renamed Core
Wars, the idea being that many small computer programs would try to expand and
fight over system memory (core memory), with the strongest ones surviving. The
programs are exposed to various environmental factors similar to the demands
put on real life: lonely or overcrowded individuals die, programs are exposed
to mutation risks, system resources vary with time (daily rhythms), aging
organisms die, etc. Tom Ray has been especially successful in the field with
his Tierra program. His artificial life forms have, through simulated
darwinistic evolution, managed to develop programming solutions to certain
specific problems that were better than anything man-made.

I have already mentioned that hackers have a respect for artificial
intelligence that is completely different from that of people in general. A
person growing up constantly surrounded by computers does not see anything
threatening in the fact that machines can think. He/she sees the denunciation
of AI as a sort of racism directed towards a certain life form. If you
criticize artificial intelligence, saying that it can never be the same, only
humans can think, etc., then consider the fact that there is no scientific
basis whatsoever for supposing that the human brain is anything but a machine,
although it may be made of flesh.

These thoughts date back to Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, two of the
progenitors of computers, who discuss the subject in a piece called Thinking
Machines, published in the 19th century. However, these ideas did not become
widely known until the 1960's, through films such as the horror movie
Colossus - The Forbins Project (1969), in which intelligent military computers
take over the world. This notion also figures in the Terminator films, with
the only significant difference being that the computer's name is Skynet -
thus, not much new under the sun in popular sci-fi. The fear of artificial
intelligence actually dates all the way back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
(1818), and perhaps even further back in history.

In the fiction of Frankenstein, the fear of AI is personified. This story,
about a scientist who creates a lethal intelligence, has become one of the new
symbols of the industrialized world, in the same class as early Greek
mythology. There is a connection between the Bible and Frankenstein, in that
the creation (mankind in the Book of Moses, the monster in Frankenstein) rebel
against its creator (God and human, respectively). In Judaic mythology there
is a corresponding myth about the clay-man Golem, who runs amok when its
master forgets to control the creature. It has occurred to me how far ahead of
its time this myth was: Golem was made of clay, and computers are made of
silicone, which is made from sand. The maker of Golem, Rabbi Löw, feeds a
piece of parchment with the name of God on it into the creature's mouth, in
order to make it "run". This is comparable to the engineer "feeding" software
into the computer. To stop the runaway Golem, the Rabbi removes the parchment
from its mouth, whereupon the creature collapses into a pile of dried mud,
robbed of its spark of life.

Thus, the fear that mankind - like God - will create intelligent life from dead
matter is found as early as in the two 19th-century myths described above.
This rather unfounded fear of rebellion against God makes up the foundation of
much of the hostility directed towards AI research. The fear is based in the
Biblical myth of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, and the possibility
that another creation will follow in our footsteps. I will, however, overlook
these myths, and instead focus the argument on the philosophy underlying
AI-research: Pragmatism with its heritage of Fallibilism, Nihilism, and
Zen-philosophy. (Don't let these strange word discourage you from reading on!)

One could ask why scientists promptly have to try to create artificial
intelligence. After all, there are already people, so why attempt to create
something new, better, something alien? Asking this question of a scientist in
the field is akin to asking a young couple why they promptly want to have
children. Why raise a new generation that will question everything you have
constructed? The answer is that it's something that simply just happens, or is
done: it is a challenge, a desire to create something that will live on, an
instinct for evolution. This is perhaps also what partly motivates hackers to
create computer viruses: the pleasure of seeing something grow and propagate.

Our entire society and our lives are so interlinked that they cannot be
separated. Society, machines, and humanity - everything has to progress.
Evolution doesn't allow any closed doors, and AI is, in my view, only another
step on the path of evolution. I see this as something positive, while others
are terrified. At the same time, one shouldn't forget to note the commercial
interests underlying the expansion of AI. Computers reading forms, sorting
information, and distributing it, is obviously simply another way for the
market to "rationalize" people out of the production chain, automating
clerical work, and making the secretary and the accountant obsolete. The board
of directors of a corporation is, as usual, only interested in making money
and accumulating capital. Wouldn't you? What is the hidden nature of this
complex entity (or as I would refer to it, superentity) that we call "the
market", and which constantly drives this process of development forward?

If you are interested in knowing more about AI and its philosophical aspects,
it is to your advantage to read a book called The Intelligent Age of Machines,
by Raymond Kurzweil (1990). To learn more about the inner workings of AI, read
Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, which is
both an elevating and depressing work. In one respect, it is a scientific
validation of Kafka's thesis: to correctly comprehend something and at the
same time misunderstand it are not mutually exclusive, which is an observation
that (fascinatingly enough) is akin to the paradoxes within Zen Buddhism, a
religion that in some aspects border on pure philosophy. To explain some of
AI's mechanisms, I need to explain some things about the part of Zen that is
associated with philosophers like Mumon, and which has less to do with sitting
around in a lotus position and meditating all day. Zen, in itself, is a
philosophy that can be dissociated from Buddhism and viewed separately.
Buddhism is based on respect for life, in all its forms, Zen, by itself, makes
no such demands, being a non-normative, non-religious philosophy.

Zen, or the Art of Breaking Out of Formal Systems
-------------------------------------------------

Zen has also become one of the most influential "new age" philosophies in the
West during the 80's and 90's. Books like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance sell amazingly well. among other things, Zen Buddhism suggests
that the entity that Western tradition calls God (and what the Buddhists call
the Brahma of the Buddha) is in fact a sum of all the independent processes in
the universe, and not a sentient force. Therefore, God is equally present in
the souls of humans as in the circuits of a computer or the cylinder shafts of
a motorcycle. Put simply, Zen is one long search for the connection between
natural processes, in the cosmos or the microcosmos, and this search in itself
constitutes a process that interfaces with the others. Zen Buddhism is the
search in itself, the point being that Zen (an abstract term for "the answer")
will never be found. Searching for Zen means that one continually come to a
point where one answers a question with both yes and no. For example:

Q: Is the ball in the bottle?
A: In one way, yes, if the bottle's inside is its inside, and in one way, no,
if the bottle's outside is its inside.

Zen constantly toys with our way of defining our environment, our method of
labeling things as well as people. Zen teaches us to see through the
inadequacies of out own language and assists us in dismantling fallacious
systems, as in when, for example, we've gotten the idea that all criminals are
swarthy (or that all hackers break into computer systems!). Zen is the thesis
that no perfect formal systems exist, that there is no perfect way of
perceiving reality. Kurt Gödel, the mathematician, proved that there are no
perfect systems within the natural sciences, and the fact that there are no
perfect systems within religion should be apparent to anyone who isn't a
fundamentalist.

Zen could be said to be based on the following supposition: The only absolute
truth is that there are no absolute truths. A paradox! - which is, naturally,
a perfect starting point for the thesis that reality cannot be captured and
all formal systems (like human language, mathematics, etc.) must contain
errors. Even the proposition that reality is incomplete is incomplete! Truth
cannot be fully expressed in words - hence the necessity of art and other
forms of expression. I will end the discussion of Zen now, but hopefully you
understand that many become confused and annoyed when one tries to explain
Zen, given that the explanation is that there is no explanation. For example,
note a quote by William S. Burroughs: "language is a virus from space",
expressing his frustration with the limitations of human language. Even
Nietzsche criticized language, finding it hopelessly limited, and feminist
Dorothy Smith has a theory concerning the use of language to control the
distribution of power in society.(1) In the Western philosophical tradition,
the equivalent of Zen is called Fallibilism, a philosophy based on the theory
that all knowledge is preliminary. This has subsequently been developed into a
philosophical theory called pragmatism, which views all formal systems as
fallible, and thus judges them based on function rather than construction.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is probably the most tangible indication that
this conception of the world is correct.(2)

A lot of modern mathematical theory of so-called non-formal systems are
associated with both Zen and Chaos theory. A non-formal system creates a
formal system to solve a problem. In order to have a chance of understanding a
(superficially) chaotic reality, we must first simplify it by creating formal
systems on different levels of description, but also retain the capacity to
break down these systems and create new ones. For example, we know that humans
are made up of cells. We also know that we are made up of atoms, and as such,
of pure energy. Nature invites to so many levels of description that we have
to sift through them to find those that we need to complete the tasks we have
selected. This is called intelligence.

There are also other philosophies that draw on parts of Zen: for example, Tao
views contradictory pairs such as right/wrong or one/zero (the smallest
building blocks of information) as holy entities, and focuses on finding
the "golden mean" between them (the archetype is Yin and Yang, a kind of
original contradictory pair). Our Western concept of
thesis-antithesis-synthesis also belongs to this group. The strength - and
weakness - in these approaches are that they instill in their followers a
belief that moderation is always best, which can be both true and false
according to Zen (depending on how you view it). All such attempts to force
reality into formal systems are of course interesting, but definitely
temporary and constantly subject to adaptation. Another philosophical system
using this mode of thought was the pre-Christian Gnosticism, where the
original opposites are God and Matter. These become intertwined within a
sequence of Aeons (ages of time, imaginary worlds, or divine beings).
Gnosticism probably originates (in turn) from an old Persian religion called
Parsism, created by the well-known philosopher Zarathustra, who initially
claimed that the world was based on such opposites.

Zen's way of thinking is partially a confirmation of the so-called nihilistic
view of reality, in which objective truth does not exist, and partially a
denial of it: it is simply a matter of point-of-view. Objective truth exists
inside formal systems, whereas outside them, it does not. By breaking out of a
formal system in which reality is described in terms of right and wrong, or
intermediate terms such as more right than wrong, one finds a part of the core
of intelligence. Being intelligent means being able to build an ordered system
out of chaos, and thoroughly enough to be able to view one's own system from
the inside and adjust one's own thoughts according to its rules. AI research
has - in an amazing fashion - shown that this ability is completely vital to
any intelligent operation whatsoever.

The difference between the real world and the one pictured inside the formal
system of one's own creation has ruffled the feathers of such grandfathers of
philosophy as Plato, Kant, and Schopenhauer. It has made them decide, after
languishing analysis, that the real world is defective and incapable of
approaching their own perfect, mathematical world of ideas. (Please note my
mild insolence; as a 24-year-old layman I shouldn't be able to claim the right
to even speak of these great philosophers. The alert reader would notice that
I'm very busy questioning traditional authorities ;-). In science, this
conflict is known as the subject-object controversy. Even in such "hard"
sciences as physics this conflict has proved to be decisive, especially in
Bell's Theorem (well-known among physicists), which has puzzled many a
scientist. (I'm not going to go into the details of Bell's Theorem, but I'm
employing it as a reference for those who are familiar with it).

When AI researchers sought the answer to the mystery of intelligence, they came
into conflict with scientific paradigms. We need to use intelligence to
understand intelligence. We need a blueprint for making blueprints; a theory
of theoretical methods, a paradigm for building paradigms, etc. They found a
paradox in which a formal system would be described in terms of another formal
system. This is when they took Gödel's theorem to heart - a proof that all
formal systems are paradoxical. The solution to the problem of creating a
formal system for intelligence was self-reference, just like a neuron in the
brain will change its way of processing information by - just that -
processing information. The answer to intelligence wasn't tables, strict sets
of rules, or mathematics. Intelligence wasn't mechanical. For intelligence to
flourish, it would have to be partially unpredictable, contradictory, and
flexible.

Many hackers and net-users are devoted Zen-philosophers, not least because many
of the functions within computers and networks are fairly contradictory. The
section of computer science concerned with AI is self-contradictory to the
highest degree. Programming is also the art of creating order from an
initially chaotic system of possible instructions, culminating in the finished
product of a computer program. If this section has been hard to understand,
please read it again; it is worth comprehending.

Humans as Machines - The Computer as a Divine Creation
------------------------------------------------------

Most hackers view people as advanced machinery, and there's really nothing
wrong with this; it is simply a new way of looking at things, another point of
view within the multi-facetted science of psychology. Hackers in general are
futurists, and to them the machine (and thus the human) is something beautiful
and vigorous. I'll willingly admit that to a certain extent I also view humans
as machines, but I'd like to tone that statement down a bit by saying that we
(like computers) are information processors - we are born with certain
information coded in our genes, and in growing up we assimilate more and more
information from our environment. The result is a complex mass of information
that we refer to as an individual. The process by which information is handled
and stored in the individual is known as intelligence. The individual also
interacts with the environment by symbolically absorbing and emitting pieces
of information, and thereby becomes a part of an even larger process, which is
in itself intelligent. (If you're of a religious persuasion, this could be
taken as an example of hubris) But what about the difference between computers
and humans?

Two things: the computer knows who has created it, and human life is clearly
time-limited. It has been proposed that the uniqueness of a human "soul" is a
product of just these two factors, and that it's therefore only uncertainty
and finitude that makes life "worth living". Of course, the theory could be
challenged by proposing that its two premises are negotiable from a long-term
perspective. Hereby the reader will have to draw his or her own metaphysical
conclusions; the subject is virtually interminable, and the audience
inexhaustible.

"I have seen things you humans can only dream of? Burning attack cruisers off
the shoulder of Orion? I saw the C-rays glitter in the Tannhauser Gate? All
these moments will now be lost in time, like tears in the rain."

(The android Roy Beatty in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, understanding some of
the meaning of life in his final moments)

By delving deep into psychology, the subject becomes simpler. An intelligent
system, whether artificial or natural, must be checked against a surrounding
system (what we might term a meta-system) in order to know the direction in
which to develop itself. In an AI system designed to recognize
characters, "rewards" and "punishments" are employed until the system learns
how to correctly distinguish valid and invalid symbols. This requires two
functions within the system: the ability to exchange information, and the
ability to reflect on this exchange. In an AI system, this is a controlled,
two-step sequence: first information is processed, then the process is
reflected upon. In a person, the information processing (usually) takes place
during the day, and the match against the "correct" pattern occurs at night,
in the form of dreams in which the events are recollected and compared to our
real motives (the subconscious). The similarity is striking.

Through this line of reasoning, we can draw the conclusion that people have an
internal system for judging correct action against incorrect action. As if
this wasn't enough, we also know that we can alter the plans by which we act -
i.e., we are not forced to follow a specific path. In this sense, humans are
just as paradoxical as any informal system, since we have the ability to break
out of the system and re-evaluate our objectives. However, the great
philosophers of psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, found that there was
a set of symbols and motives that were not subject to modification, but rather
common to all persons. Freud spoke of the overriding drives, mainly the sexual
and survival drives. Jung expanded the argument to encompass several
archetypes, which referred to certain fundamental notions of what is good and
what is evil.(3) These archetypal drives, which seem to exist in all animals,
appears to be the engine that propels humans into the effort of exploring and
trying to understand their environment.

This is the most fundamental difference between persons and machines. There is
nothing that says that we should have to let intelligent machines be driven by
the same urges as we are. Instead, we can equip them with a drive to solve the
problems for which they were constructed. When the machine evaluates its own
actions, it is then constantly driven towards doing our bidding. Isaac Asimov,
the science-fiction writer, suggested such things in his robot novels through
the concept of the laws of robotics, by which robots were driven by an almost
pathological desire to please their human masters. This relationship is also
found in the modern film Robocop, in which an android policeman is driven by
his will to indiscriminately uphold the law.

Towards an Artificial Age - AI and Society
------------------------------------------

Aspects of AI is mirrored by the media of our time - Blade Runner is about the
difference between man and machine, AI figures heavily in cyberpunk novels,
music and film, and in 1995 the movie Frankenstein makes a comeback in the
theaters. Coincidence? Hardly. An exciting example of this trend is Arnold
Schwarzenegger's role as the robot in Terminator 2. In the film, the
artificial intelligence holds human characteristics, as a result of being
programmed by a human rebel instead of a brutal military force. It also
touches upon aspects of the consequences of carelessly handling technology (as
when Rabbi Löw lost control of his Golem). Of particular interest is the scene
in which the robot, being machine, simply follows its programmed instructions
to obliterate people standing in its way as opposed to finding peaceful
solutions. The lead character, John (which incidentally happens to be a
skilled hacker), discovers a dangerous "programming bug" in the robot's
instruction set, which he corrects. The message of the film is that technology
and AI are good things - if used properly and supervised by human agents. The
real danger is people's ignorant nonchalance.

The Swedish movie Femte Generationen ("The Fifth Generation") again deserves
being mentioned in this context. Fifth-generation computer systems are simply
another name for artificially intelligent systems.

Lars Gustavsson makes a strong impression with his beautiful sci-fi novel, Det
Sällsamma Djuret Från Norr ("The Strange Beast from the North"), which treats
the metaphysical aspects of AI in a thorough and entertaining manner. His
thoughts on decentralized intelligence are especially exciting, which suggest
that a society of ants could be considered intelligent, whereas a single ant
could not - and in this manner, all of humanity could be viewed as one
cohesive, intelligent organism. This view is taken from sociology, which has
become very important to AI research.

Flows of information are an indication of intelligence. This is confirmed in
the model of society as a unitary sentient force. The intelligence of
individuals and societies are undoubtedly related; the ability to store and
process information through the construction and dissolution of formal systems
is a sign of intelligence. Society is an organism, but at the same time it is
not (yes, this is very Zen). These ideas go all the way back to the founder of
sociology, Auguste Comte. I have myself coined the term superindividuals as a
label for these macro-intelligences known as corporations, the market, the
state, the capital, and so on. I will return to this subject further ahead.

Again, it is possible to emphasize the relatedness of chaos research and
intelligence; intelligence can be seen on many different levels, each
constituting a formal system in itself. One system is akin to another, and
they form as strangely coherent pattern. Our intelligence seems to be united
with our ability to enforce chaos.

Alan Turing and the Turing Test
-------------------------------

Alan Turing was one of the very first people concerned with making machines
intelligent. He proposed a test that could decide whether or not a system was
intelligent - the so-called Turing Test. It consisted of placing a person in a
room with a terminal that was either connected to a terminal controlled by
another person, or to a computer that pretended to be a person. If the test
subjects couldn't tell the difference between man and machine, i. e. that they
couldn't make a correct judgment in half of the cases, the computer could be
said to be intelligent.

This test was rather quickly subject to criticism by way of a theory called The
Chinese Room. This entailed running the Turing Test in Chinese, with a
Chinese-speaking person at one terminal and a person that didn't speak Chinese
at the other. For the non-Chinese person to have a chance to answer the
questions posed by the Chinese-speaker, he/she was to be presented with set of
rules consisting of symbols, grammar, etc., through which sensible answers
could be formulated without the subject knowing an ounce of Chinese. By simply
performing lookups in tables and books it would seem like the person in fact
spoke Chinese and was intelligent, although he or she was just following a set
of rules. The little slave running back and forth, interpreting the
Chinese-speaker's questions without knowing anything, was compared to the
hardware of the computer, the machine. The books and the rules for responding
constituted the software, or the computer program. In this way, it was argued
that the computer couldn't be intelligent, but rather only capable of
following given instructions.

However, it turned out that this objection was false. The one that the
Chinese-speaker is communicating with is not solely the person sitting at the
other end, but the entire system, including the terminal, books, rule sets,
etc., that the poor stressed-out fellow in the other room used to formulate
answers. Even if the person sitting at the other end of the line was not
intelligent, the system as a whole was intelligent. The same goes for a
computer: even if the machine or the program is intelligent in itself, the
entire system of machine + program very well could be. The case is the same
for a human - a single neuron in the brain is not intelligent. Not even entire
parts of the brain, or the brain itself, are intelligent, since they cannot
communicate. The system of a person with both a body and a brain, however, can
be intelligent!(4)

From this follows the slightly unpleasant realization that every intelligent
system must constantly process information in order to stay intelligent. We
have to accept sensory input and in some way respond to it to properly be
called intelligent. A human without the ability to receive or express
information is therefore not intelligent! A flow of information is an
indication of the presence of intelligence. From this stems the concept of
brain deat - a human without intelligence is not a human.

We might finish this chapter by defining what intelligence really is (according
to Walleij): Intelligence is the ability to create, within a seemingly chaotic
flow of information, systems for the purpose of sorting and evaluating this
flow, and at the same time incessantly revise and break down these systems in
order to create new ones. (Note that this definition is paradoxical, since it
describes the very process by which the author was able to formulate it. You
can't win? :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Probably a form of structuralism.

2. "Correct" is always a vague term in the field of philosophy. Don't take it
too literally, and keep in mind that this is popular science...

3. Theories which are now out of favor with the established authorities. Oh
well. Enimvero di no quasi pilas homines habent.

4. Or maybe not. It is impossible for a person to become intelligent without
the society that surrounds her, and therefore it is the system of human +
society that is intelligent? etc. etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------
Chapter 12: VIRTUAL REALITY
---------------------------

I will now talk about something that is horribly overestimated, but inevitably
influential when it comes to the future - at least when viewed as a
phenomenon. I hesitated for a long time before deciding to include virtual
reality (VR) in this book, but I realized that it obviously belonged to the
subject of electronic culture. The reason for my hesitancy is that this area
of research has been so hyped up and misunderstood that it has assumed almost
religious proportions.

Virtual reality was originally a term that meant imagined reality. It's the
same sort of reality that role-playing enthusiasts occupy when they navigate
an imaginary world. In its original form, this artificial environment requires
a considerable degree of imagination and patience. VR has progressed from
traditional pen-and-paper role-playing games to interactive role-playing games
on the Internet, so-called MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons), and not until the 90's
did the term become synonymous with the technology that allows the creation of
realities using computer-generated sound and graphics. In a MUD, a certaain
protocol is established in order to communicate directly with other people,
which uses a language that is an extension of the written word. It is possible
to state which way one wishes to communicate with a fellow player. For
example, one can make clear the one wishes an utterance to be taken
ironically, coldly, or erotically. One could write: "Say 'hiya!' in a humorous
manner to X", by which X receives a message like this: "Y says 'hiya!' to you
in a humorous manner". It is also possible to strike poses, and to emote
feelings. You might receive a message such as: "Y smiles an ironic smile".

This mode of communication over the Internet has had a decisive influence on
the language that is used in written debate in the electronic universe. The
most well-known conventions include the sign for humor, :-) (a smiley-face,
sideways), and the sign for irony, ;-) (a winking smiley-face), as well as
writing in ALL CAPITALS to indicate shouting. In addition to these, a slew of
more or less commonly accepted symbols has arisen. This is the first step
towards network-based transmission of symbols with another meaning than the
purely linguistic. It creates the first possibility of using "tone of voice"
and body language in artificial worlds.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is an extension of MUDs. It is possible to do pretty
much the same things in IRC as on a MUD, except it's a little closer to
reality. Some set up private IRC conferences and chat within an exclusive
group, while others spend their time on some of the many open groups, such as
#Sweden, which works sort of like a text version of phone chat, for Swedish
speakers. Today, about 1,000 Swedes use IRC on a regular basis.(1) IRC has a
rigid technocratic hierarchy in which those who know more about the system
have more power, and can push other people around about as much as they
please. Democracy doesn't exist: on every channel there's a number
of "royalty" (so-called chan-ops, or channel operators) who sometimes "fight"
for control over the channel. In IRC there is also the possibility of
conducting information trading, which entails trading information using one
simple command: /dcc send nick file. IRC has already developed into a
subculture, with its own values and pecking orders. A surprising number of
women use IRC.

This technology is just the first step of a progression that will take us to
infinitely more sophisticated forms of communication than we know today. In
experimental facilities, the imaginary environments become more and more real,
so much that many have started to question the difference between real and
imaginary reality, concluding that it is mostly a matter of definition. But
let's start at the beginning.

No single person has been more important to virtual reality as Jaron Lanier.
Jaron moved to California in 1981, with the intention of living as a hippie
and playing the flute on the streets. Instead, he stumbled into a job as
computer game programmer. After some time in the field, he started a company
called VPL (Visual Programming Languages) with his own money and started a
non-profit project which involved developing a programming language.
Programming languages are the languages that people use to communicate with
computers and tell them what to do, Examples of common programming languages
include BASIC (Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code), Pascal (after
the mathematician of the same name), and C (named by someone who thought the
naming conventions for programming languages had gotten out of hand).

Now, Jaron didn't want to write any old programming language, but THE
programming language. He thought programming was one of the most fun things he
knew, but it was reserved for an all-too-small group of people. He thought
everyone should be able to program. Instead of just allowing a tiny elite of
programmers to build mathematical and symbolic models of reality, he wanted to
place this tool in the hands of the common man, with a minimal amount of
prerequisite knowledge. The language was finally named Mandala.

Many people that try using a computer for the first time thinks the whole thing
is too abstract and contains too many theoretical concepts. A computer student
I had once said:

"You can tell me that this here is a command, and that it has this and that
property and works in such and such a way. It's like telling me that this is a
hammer, and it works like so. I'll never understand unless I get to hold the
hammer."

He hit the nail on the head. If people won't adapt to computers, then computers
would have to adapt to people. If Mohammed won't come to the mountain, the
mountain will have to come to Mohammed. That was Jaron's idea: make the
computing environment as real as possible, remove that keyboard if it causes
so much frustration, and take away that two-dimensional screen if flat symbols
are so hard to understand. Create an entire reality around the user so that he
or she feels at home. The concept of virtual reality was born. Of course, this
idea was not entirely new. The first time the concept of VR came up was
supposedly in 1965, through Ivan Sutherland at Utah university. But Jaron was
the first one to try to realize these ideas, and make money off them.

VPL was founded in 1985. Since then, nothing's been the same. In 1991, us
regular people made our first acquaintance with VR as W Industries released
its computer game Virtuality everywhere. Newspapers, radio, TV - everyone told
the story about this new and fantastic invention. It was also at thaat time
that people started making comparisons to William Gibson's novel, Neuromancer,
and discovered obvious similarities between the way the lead character, Case,
connected his brain to a computer to enter cyberspace, and the gols of VR.
That was when people seriously started questioning the direction our society
was heading, and it is also among the reasons that William Gibson is such an
important writer.

All of it is not as strange as it is sometimes presented. By applying sensors
to the body that register all its movements, the computer can sense how you
move about and then generate sound and visual impressions that agree with the
way we're used to perceiving reality. The sound is created by a quadrophonic
sound system that allows us to place sound spatially, and images are displayed
three-dimensinally since the computer draws an image for each eye. This is VR
today; no more, no less. Objects can be perceived as three-dimensional and
sounds can be generated as to make us think they came from the object in
question. Nothing strange there, just normal manipulation of our sensory
capacities, just like a computer screen or a loudspeaker, only more
sophisticated and refined. Machine-generated hallucinations or tangible dreams
are other possible terms for the technique.

Jaron, then, envisioned VR as a form of programming language, primarily
intended for creating models to facilitate research and education, and to make
the capacities of the computer more accessible. This is not exactly how it
turned out. Some inventions have the ability to shock their inventors by
turning out to have applications far wider in scope than the inventor could
ever dream about. Nuclear power is probably the most frightening example of
this. VR was transformed from a programming language into a medium.

We have a handful of media in our society. We have various sorts of literature.
We have theater and film. We have radio and television. We also have
multimedia, like computer games and hypertext, which is a kind of improved
text that allows us to read textlike a database instead of like a book. And
now we have VR, and that too is a form of medium. More specifically, it is the
most powerful medium that humankind has ever created. VR envelops you in all
dimensions and commands your complete attention, just as if it was your real
life that was involved. You can run, but you cannot possibly hide from it.
(Imagine what a fascinating medium for commercials: Depends diapers chase you
into a corner and suffocate you to death.)

When Jaron was well underway with his project, he realized that he needed help
to complete it. He enlisted the aid of the MIT media lab, which had already
helped in enlightening the world through the graphical interface. (An
interface is the set of things that exist as a bridge between the computer and
the user, like the screen and the mouse). This was later to be used by Xerox,
Macintosh, and Microsoft (in that order), and we nowadays know it under such
product names as System 7 and Windows. The military got into the action, as
usual. They had already experimented with flight simulators to train pilots
before sending them into action. VR was viewed as a possibility of improving
the simulators, and even to develop very accurate systems for remote presence,
in which a pilot might be able to steer a plane into enemy territory while
physically being located in a bunker back home in HQ. Such a system would be
an economical way of maintaining pilot ranks, as well as permitting them to
build planes that could stand physical stress way beyond the tolerance of any
human pilot. Like RC planes, but cooler (and much more dangerous). Therefore,
the military blew a huge load of money on VR research. War, as always, has a
way of making technological research move by quantum leaps and bounds.

It's difficult to say what importance VR will have in the future, In a way , it
changes nothing - we all experience VR every night, in dreaming. The
difference is that in VR we can control the content, and employ highly
tangible dreams for our own purposes. One of the greatest areas of VR
application is therefore in psychology, since dreams has a primary importance
in the study of the human mind. It is quite reasonable to expect VR to be used
in very sophisticated therapy. Or brainwashing, if that's what's desired.
Brainwashing is not always a negative thing; in inpatient psychiatric care,
rapists and killers are treated with a very advanced form of brainwashing to
cure pathological behaviors. Such care can certainly be improved and become
more effective with VR. Conversely, VR can be abused.

As a medium, VR holds enormous potential. When we communicate across electronic
links, we don't feel as if we actually meet someone. The anonymity that goes
with a telephone receiver allows us to spit out the most daring utterances,
since we don't feel physically intimidated. When we speak on the phone, we are
constantly distracted by other events in our surroundings. When we communicate
via Internet, it is impossible to use any form of real body language or tone
of voice. The only way to communicate feelings in an electronic conference is
by writing lightning-quick and misspelled sentences to express upset, or using
typographical conventions to communicate states of mind.

In VR, we can use as much body language as we want to. We can make the
encounter totally similar to reality, as if we were meeting in the same room.
We can make it more than real - we can inflate ourselves to twice our size if
we want. We can disguise ourselves as anyone, and decide exactly what the room
should look like. I can experience it as if we're at your place, and you could
feel as if you were at my place. We can actually be in two places at once, so
that both of us feel at home! (Translator's note: the old line that goes "your
place or mine" would become obsolete.). I could be at a steel mill, with the
noise in the background, and you can be in the forest listening to the birds
singing. I think you're sitting on a treestump, and you think I'm sitting on
an anvil. Anything's possible.

In sociology, the science that studies the relations between humans, the
concept of symbols is used to denote that exchange of information between
people that goes deeper than language. As opposed to language, such symbolisms
cannot at present be stored or synthesized. This is one reason for inventing
written languages. A language that can be stored enables a cultural heritage
that spans generations, and gives humanity a so-called collective
consciousness. The concept of a symbol includes, in addition to spoken and
written language, body language such as glances and involuntary movements (in
linguistics, gestures and such are called paralinguistics).

Symbolic language between people consists of genetic as well as learned
components. Animals that cannot speak or write communicate exclusively
through "primitive" symbolisms of the sort I just mentioned. Symbols can be
thought of as the bonds that tie people together in groups, societies, and
entire systems of societies. Not unexpectedly, symbols figure heavily in AI
research; most AI researchers view all of a person's consciousness as the
construct of a flow of symbols in one form or another, and intelligence itself
as one great information-processing system. (But I've already talked about
that?)

The goal of virtual reality is that all symbols should be able to be stored and
synthesized. It's supposed to become the perfect medium of communication
between people - even better than reality. And this is perhaps what makes it
so frightening. The computer offers the possibility of twisting symbolic
language. If you control the computer, you could use it to appear as great and
conceited as possible, and your own picture of reality would be distorted so
that other people appeared as dorks. The line between illusion and reality
could become fuzzy indeed.

It is completely impossible to predict what this would do to our way of
perceiving the world, and other persons in particular; the only thing that's
certain is that it will change. Sometimes, people speak of the cultural or
sociological atomic bomb, where VR is a threat that could destroy all our
norms or even our entire perception of reality. Any prediction in this field
at present must be considered pure speculation, since no one communicates by
VR to any great degree.

However, sci-fi authors already warn us of the dangers of VR. One of the first
examples is Philip K. Dick's short story called Wholesale Memories, later made
into the movie Total Recall, and other examples include the Illuminatus!(2)
trilogy, our beloved X-Files, and the movie Videodrome (1982). All of these
are based on the horrific scenario of not knowing what is real and what is
imagined(3) - in other words, paranoia based on reality. I have myself written
a short story in this vein, and begun another which I never completed:

"Sometime that year, a group of eager scientists inserted the first Carcer chip
into the skull of a deaf-dumb and quadraplegic test subject. When the affluent
layers of society gradually migrated towards a better, artificial world, these
slaves, people whose will would never make itself known due to the iron grip
of the Carcer chip, would be left behind to run the power plants, the farms,
the food processing plants, and all the other necessary societal institutions.

Many free persons understood that the Carcer project was inhumane fromk
beginning to end, that the people in the bonds of the chip no longer had a
will of their own. Yet they were reluctant to leave the material well-being
that they had built for years in a world that didn't exist. Their brains were
connected to the machines by electrodes, and their peripheral nervous systems
with its arms, legs, and eyes, were disconnected. Physically, they lived out
their days suspended in a tank filled with isolating liquid kept at body
temperature.

The freedom of a number of less privileged individuals was worth sacrificing
for the free men and women that now lived in invulnerable bodies made of data,
and who mentally controlled political events. (?bla bla bla)"

But - to be honest - don't worry. People are rather sensible beings, all things
considered. There is no reason to suspect that we wouldn't be able to exploit
this new resource in a reasonable fashion. However, virtual reality in
combination with AI gives us a new picture of the importance of human beings
vs. society, which is the subject of chapter 15.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This number is constantly rocketing upwards.

2. Fredric Jameson has claimed that the entire cyberpunk/tech noir genre is
simply a reformulation of the theme illustrated in Illuminatus!, which is a
global network of interwoven organizations and informal circles (which
actually exist in some form) described as a metaphor inside the computer - the
electonic network. The incomprehensible electronic organism becomes a model
for the incomprehensible power. I don't agree. The computer is fascinating in
itself, and one is not a symbol for the other. Possibly, you could view the
two as an important concept-pair.

3. One philosopher who's written a great deal about the dissolution of reality
in a kind of "virtual reality" or "hyperreality" goes by the name Jean
Baudrillard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------
Chapter 13: NET-ATTITUDES, TECHNOCRACY, AND DEMOCRACY
-----------------------------------------------------

Selling and owning information is a profession today. Journalists, PR
professionals, consultants, and lobbyists base a large portion of their
professional pride on the ownership of information. Naturally, they don't want
to share their information unless they get something in exchange, and the
things we give them in exchange are decent salaries and social status. Their
professions are at risk of being fundamentally changed by information
technology, and many of them are aware of this. How?

At MIT, the first hackers left their programs (in the form of long strips of
paper with holes in them) lying in a box next to the computer. They did this
partly so that whoever wanted to could examine them, but also so that whoever
felt like it would be able to improve and expand the programs. This
open-hearted attitude is an example of typical "hacker mentality", and has
since then characterized almost all research and program development that has
taken place over the Internet. This falls under Rule 1 in the chapter about
cyberpunk: the hands-on imperative.

There are lots of programs that have been developed according to a principle
called Stone Soup. This is one of the oldest - if not the oldest - methods in
software development. The first hackers at MIT, in the 60'd, worked according
to this principle. Today it works like this: a programmer manufactures the
core of the project, a working program that provides the foundation for the
end product (the stone in the soup). The programmer then puts the program on
the Internet and tells all the amateur programmers out there: "Here's the
program - if you find any faults and know how to fix them, then please do so.
Then send the changes back to me."

The original programmer then assumes the role of editor, accepting suggestions
and constantly adding to and modifying the program. The end product is then
distributed for free. The PC programs Fractint and Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
are just two of the great mass of programs that have been created in this
manner. Even if an amateur may not be able to accomplish a lot by him- or
herself, he or she is still often an expert at something.

One of the first stone soup programs that was really successful was Tiny BASIC,
a competitor of Bill Gates' Altair BASIC, which managed to stand out by being
much better than Gates' BASIC, and free. (Guess if that was a thorn in the
side to some people). Among modern stone soup products there are entire
operating systems such as Linux (a project started by Linus Torvalds at
Helsinki University, referred to by many as the most successful hacking
project of all time), X-Windows, and the EMACS text editor, used in making
countless textbooks and college essays. All of these programs are free.

The communications protocol stack called TCP/IP (Transfer Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol), which is about to conquer the entire market for
network communications, is also stone soup. (It is used to make
computers "understand" each other when "talking" over a network - TCP/IP is to
a computer as a telephone receiver and a dial is to a person). This protocol
stack is judged by those who develop the Internet, and is constantly revised
and improved as the "editors" send out RFCs (Request for Comments). TCP/IP is
completely free, and no one has made money from its invention. It has (without
any marketing whatsoever) become so huge simply because no one is fighting
over copyrights or trying to keep "commercial secrets" to themselves. On the
other hand, it's not hard to make lots of money from the knowledge of how
TCP/IP works. The knowledge about the product is therefore of greater value to
the market than the product itself. This is why some of the people who know
TCP/IP are very secretive about their knowledge, in order to maintain a demand
for consulting services.

The companies that are marketing their own communications protocols are
naturally displeased about this. That's why they gladly disseminate lies which
claim that TCP/IP is of poor quality - even that it's bad and worthless. The
most common argument is "the more cooks, the worse the soup" - which means
that a lot useless junk supposedly makes it into the programs. This is
patently false. The discussion groups evaluate every proposed change before it
is incorporated. It's a shame that such rumors are sometimes published in
major newspapers and magazines (none mentioned, none forgotten). I prefer to
listen to experts like Peter Schaeffer who know what they're talking about.

At the front of the defenders of this fundamental technological principle there
are people like Richard Stallman, a former MIT hacker who referred to himself
for a while as the last real hacker. He established the foundation for GNU as
well as EMACS, and his point of view is that software shouldn't be subject to
ownership. He is also an influential force behind the Free Software
Foundation, which is an organization that primarily concerns itself with the
promotion of free software. He has had many software companies up in arms over
his method of copying ideas without copying program code, which is known as
reverse engineering or simply deconstruction. It involves analyzing a program
on an object (machine-code) level, noting its functions, and then creating a
program that performs the same tasks. Stallman's productivity in this respect
is so legendary that he is referred to as perhaps the greatest and most
motivated hacker ever, and fully capable of doing the job of an entire
development team on his own. He has also had an influential role in the
organization League for Programming Freedom, which has as its mission the
liberation of software from patents.

Stone soup software also has the advantage of being easily modified or analyzed
in order to find out exactly how it works, since all documentation is
accessible to whoever wants it. This is in contrast to software that's been
manufactured by corporations, which lock source code and documentation in a
vault and charge exorbitant prices to share their knowledge when a problem
occurs. The intention is that the user should think that the program is so
incredibly fantastic that only the in-house programmers (which are presented
as some kind of wizards) are able to understand and improve the program. Talk
about a monopoly on information.

Well.

Imagine the stone soup principle being applied to a piece of text, like the one
you're reading now. If I had access to an Internet server, I could put this
document in hypertext form (which is a kind of text invented by Tim
Berners-Lee subsequent to an idea put forth by Ted Nelson, in which consistent
subjects or general keywords are electronically linked in order to allow the
reader to quickly jump to different points in the text) and put something like
this at the end:

"All of you who are reading this - send in revisions and addenda to me, and
I'll put them in the text."

It's all free. Anyone could get the document off the Internet. I don't profit
from it except for gaining knowledge, and no one else does either. If my
document became popular and reached a wide audience, a few experts would (with
some luck) contact me with corrections and additions. Not much, but just
enough to cover the subject on which that person is an expert. Then, I could
assume the role of editor and collate all of this information, put new links
in the hypertext and facilitate searching and notices of updates to the text.
I would feel that I was doing something useful, but I wouldn't be able to earn
a living doing it. After a few years, my document would become an entire
database covering almost every aspect of computer culture, more comprehensive,
editable, and thorough than any national encyclopaedia, and furthermore it
would be written at the grassroots level by people who love what they do.

So why don't I?

Answer: first of all, I don't have the time or energy.(1) Second, it is not a
matter of solving a technical problem like those in a computer program; this
text is multi-faceted and highly subjective. It bears the mark of my own
values and judgments, and I want it to remain as such in the future. Every
word is written by myself and no one else. Call it pride. Further, it has a
beginning and an end, and it is possible to critique it as something coherent
and static, not as something that is constantly morphing. It is possible to
form a clear view of the text that lasts a few days, and this is the advantage
of the statically fixed text versus the ever-changing one.

If this were a practical problem of a technical character within any of the
natural sciences or medicine, the situation would be radically different. Such
hypertext documents are created around the world as we speak. They grow
together, forming a world of information, accessible to anyone, anywhere, who
has access to the Internet. It's known as the World Wide Web (WWW). By
extension, the human hypertextual heritage will grow into a mass of
information of such mammoth proportion that it will be impossible to get one's
mind around it. It will be like a library of memories for all of humankind.
Hypertext is also changing more and more into program code, which erodes the
distinction between regular, literary text and computer programs. The
professions of author and programmer blend together. This is what multimedia
is. The tools used to create multimedia products are not called computer
languages, they're called authoring programs.

Some authors of fiction have adopted the idea of publishing their creations for
a wide audience, on the Internet. Since fictional writers generally want their
works to be read and only incidentally to make money, this is a natural step.
The first well-established author to put some of his work on the Internet was
Stephen King, on September 19, 1993. Many other authors thought this was a
great idea, and published some of their older books on the Web. In Sweden,
Lars Fimmerstad was the pioneer in this aspect, with his novel Välkommen Hem
("Welcome Home"), and shortly thereafter Ola Larsmo followed in his footsteps
with his short story, Stumheten ("The Speechlessness"). The more established
an author is, the more conservatively he or she approaches electronic
publication. To a certain extent they live off their book sales, and feel
threatened by a form of publication through which they cannot yet get paid.

This progress within media is in step with the trends in organizations, which
are being transformed into networks - loosely connected associations without
staff or representatives, established for the purpose of answering one single
question or solving one specific and well-defined problem (making stone soup),
and that have so far stayed connected through mail correspondence and phone
calls (exchanges of information). Do not confuse a "network" with a "computer
network", even if many "networks" employ "computer networks". Your local
bridge club is a "network", and the Internet is a "computer network". A common
denominator of all networks is that they distribute information of some kind.
(Confusing?) Mnemonic device: bridge club = a network of people, the Internet
= a network of computers.

So what's the point of all this?

Well, it is that network documents will quickly become so numerous that it will
be impossible to get an overview of them. Therefore, it is (as always)
necessary to go through a long and hard learning process, or hire a
consultant, to access a specific piece of knowledge. A typical consultant is a
watch group that cover some specific area of interest, which we usually refer
to as the technical press, only in this context it's electronic. The need for
specialized journalism therefore exists in the information society as well. At
the time of this writing, such journals cannot get paid for their information
services, but a system is under development. That means that you will be able
to buy information about anything using your own computer. Naturally, you
don't pay with cash, but with numbers.

These technical journalists will basically become the first people to earn
their living solely by processing information; they'll be the first ones to
enter into the total information economy. The other papers will follow, one by
one. Some newspapers, such as Aftonbladet/Kultur (a major Swedish evening
paper) have anticipated this, and are preparing themselves for the entry into
the information economy by experimenting with electronic editions. Other
papers remain content with simply publishing electronic complements to their
printed material. (In the experimental stage, all of this is free! Grab the
chance now that you have it, because it won't come back). In addition to this,
and as a natural consequence of it, we'll get a huge number of electronic
fanzines(2), due to the amazing simplicity and cheapness of making an
electronic publication. (The hacker culture has spawned hundreds or maybe even
thousands of such magazines.) No printing costs, no contracts, no advertisers,
just information and motivation. Culture without biznizz.

Cynically speaking, journalists are experts at information trading. It's
probably the only profession that even before the time of computers made a
living solely by producing and processing information. Journalists do not
think that information, and therefore knowledge, should be free and
universally accessible. On the contrary, each journalist (at least each
specialized journalist) jealously guard "their" information sources, not
revealing them without very good reason. The journalist is just as
conservative and stingy as the elitist and sectarian hacker groups. For the
public good is one thing - but even journalists have to eat. It's about
protecting one's intellectual property. The truth is that the fourth state,
just like the government and the corporate world, also consists of personal
contact networks and hierarchies in which string-pulling ability is very
important. Even journalists are totally ignorant of hacker ethics, which to a
high degree influences their reporting when it comes to hackers.

The guidelines surrounding electronic publishing indicate the emergence of two
new types of media. One will be stored on CD-ROM disks and will contain huge
stores of knowledge, such as a database or a searchable encyclopaedia.
Interface magazine was first in Sweden to try this. The other type is Online
Services, which provide news and information updated daily, hourly, or even
more frequently. The first Swedish online service was probably Text-TV. The
first Swedish online magazine on the Internet was Datateknik.(3) At the
moment, it is not possible to charge for online services, but that capacity is
on its way.

In the long term, CD-ROMs will run into problems. It will soon be very easy to
copy the disks, so why should I buy the paper, the encyclopaedia, the
dictionary, or whatever, when I can copy it off my neighbor? Once you try to
protect the information from being copied, you can bet your ass that some
hackers will come around and crack the protection and copy it anyway. Online
services don't really suffer from this problem.(4) Some prophecy the total
disappearance of disks in favor of online services, but this is unlikely to
happen soon. The need to own the physical form of something, like a compact
disk or a print magazine is still strong in our generation.

Others say that mass media will disappear. That depends on how you look at it.
Mass media as it is today will certainly go away, but we will also equally
certainly get a new definition of mass media. Print publications will most
likely remain until we find a way to make electronic information as portable,
but that day will come.

The magazine called The Whole Earth Review has aroused public interest in
electronic media in the USA. The popular magazine Wired, which I mentioned
earlier, is one of the publications that have received a boost from the
progress at the electronic frontier. This paper has become extremely popular,
not least due to its youthful layout. It has paved the way for several similar
magazines across the world, such as Sweden's Z Mag@zine and Hallå, which have
apparently gotten their whole business idea from magazines like Wired. They
write about the Internet, BBSs, everything falling into the category of media
and information technology, and fashion and trends. Both publications have
(intentionally) refused to acknowledge the existence of the other. Both are
currently out of print, but Hallå is restarting soon.

Other American magazines that seem to be great sources of inspiration for this
type of media are RayGun and Gray Areas. MONDO 2000 is a tad too provocative
for the more distinguished circles, as it has a rather conspicuous air of
hippie and yippie philosophy. Some people are irritated by these magazines,
since they write mostly about each other (media writing about other media,
journalists about other journalists, etc.) Seeking a cause for this, one would
most likely conclude that media products are changing due to the entrance of
information technology. Text and images are becoming easier to edit and
distribute, and the purpose of journalists is under re-evaluation, etc. It's
also not surprising that journalism is of interest to journalists. With the
role of media as the "fourth state", critiquing itself is probably necessary
function. To spice it up, the subjects are often things that are exciting in
real life. Preferably hacking, of course. They're the ultra-hyped spearhead of
the "information revolution".

The hackers don't think these magazines are anything special (as the
publications seem to think themselves sometimes), but rather refer to them
bluntly as hacker-wannabes - trying to write as if they're something they're
not. Sweden, for example, is full of Schyffert-wannabes, Guillou-wannabes, and
Bildt-wannabes. (As for myself, I'm a Visionary-wannabe ;). The frequent use
of trite terms like cyber, powerful, IT, and (insert latest catch-phrase here)
is a common denominator for hacker-wannabes, plus that they use Macintosh
computers. (Translator's note: HEY! What the hell do you think I started
translating this text on?).

The tendency of aggressive competition among hackers is similar to the brutal
reality of everyday journalism, and this is probably the reason that these
magazines inherit hacker culture and ideals. Few of these journalists seem to
understand the friendly, non-American part of hacker culture, which is not as
interesting since it's not as illegal, contains much less confrontation, and
built more on friendship than competition. This is of course not so strange,
since journalists love conflict and in many cases spur it on. (Conflicts
inspire great headlines, and attract readers.)

Technocracy
-----------

The Internet is often referred to as "anarchistic". This is a gross
exaggeration. The Internet is fundamentally technocratic and decentralized. As
it was first built, by the university hackers, they wove some of their
open-minded attitudes into the web of the Internet. Remember Rule #3 of hacker
ethics: Distrust authority - promote decentralization. That is: if I help you,
you help me, and nowhere in the core structure of the Internet was there a
function for charging each other for the use of communication channels. There
were no locked doors, since it was held that everyone should be able to access
anything and share their information. (Rule #2: All information should be
free.) Just jack in and go. The only things to pay for were the constant phone
line connections on which the information flowed, and then you could
communicate as much as you wanted.

The entire network has been built using the stone soup principle. Every problem
that occurs is posted on discussion groups, after which anyone who wants to
may suggest a solution. The users are very eager to help, and usually there
are a number of proposed solutions. The proposals are evaluated in the
discussion group, and the one that's considered to be the best wins. The
result is documented and then distributed as a de facto standard. This
technocratic method of problem-solving is radically different from the market
model. In a market economy, companies compete for the best solution. Each
company has an R&D division that develop a solution, which is then marketed.
After that, consumers judge the products by buying the one that suits them the
most. The "bad" solutions are thrown out as the companies that fail to get
enough market share discontinue their productmaking and buy patents from the
successful companies, or, at worst, go bankrupt. In this manner it is
suggested that the best product always survives.(5) (Translator's note: it's
also highly circular, as the "market" judges the "marketing and marketability"
of a "marketed" product).

The problem is that the winning solutions in a market economy aren't always
technically superior. They might as well be the best marketed or cheapest
products. For example, reflect on how the VHS video system beat the
technically superior Betamax system. (According to legend, this was ultimately
due to the fact that the VHS format was marketed by the adult video industry?.
hmmm.)(6) (Translator's note: How about Windows...). This would never happen
in a technocracy like the Internet. A technocracy doesn't allow marketing or
arbitrariness to send a good idea into the wastebasket of history. It's pretty
typical for the universities to build a technocratic network, since their main
goal is always technological progress.

In a market economy, it is the carrot of personal gain and wealth that drive
the businesspeople to develop better and better products. In a technocracy,
it's personal commitment, fellowship, and the desire to advance knowledge that
drives the developers. With the Internet, this attitude towards research and
product development has spread across the world, and sometimes it generates
solutions that completely beat out those of the market economy. It's not a
planned economy, since there's no single authority that finances and evaluates
the products. It's a technocracy, based upon individuals in voluntary
cooperation.

In addition to the university researchers, who thanks to secure personal
finances are able to dedicate themselves to solving Internet problems at work,
many people employed at regular market-driven companies have started
developing solutions to different technical problems on their own private
time. The desire to show one's competence in a technical field, and to be
accepted as a skilled developer among others on the Net, has been enough to
motivate these people to develop technical solutions. Call it the joy of
working or professional pride. (Yes, these still exist even in our time).

Whether technocracy is a threat or a complement to a market economy is hard to
predict. Perhaps we're entering a form of knowledge economy. It is, however,
clear that with internationalization and the ability to work in small interest
groups across great distances, we have found a so-called "nonprofit" force
that enables us to perform practical work and have fun at the same time. Group
fellowship is the same as that among the hackers, who have long been
exchanging experience through letters, BBSs, copy parties, and the Internet.
The only difference is that one form is more "respectable" than the other.

As I suggested earlier, it's possible to detect an anarchistic ideological
heritage within technocracy. Peter Krapotkin thought that society should be
run through the cooperative efforts of independent groups. As opposed to
Charles Darwin, who thought that races (and by extension, society) evolved
through competition, Kropotkin emphasized the important role of cooperation in
the building of a society. The Internet technocracy is in some ways proof that
free groups independently set up cooperative relationships without
governmental influence. The virtual society is anarchistic, in this way. At
the same time, there is an aspect of Darwinism, in that only the best
solutions survive. The difference is that this happens as a result of mutual
agreement and doesn't affect any people or companies in a negative manner.

A Few Examples
--------------

I once (in my foolish youth) wrote an opinion piece and sent it to Datateknik
magazine (a Swedish computer publication). In this piece, I lamented the poor
availability of digitized (machine-readable, stored in a computer or on disks)
literature, and the fact that our cultural heritage wasn't properly
electronically stored. I suggested that publishers should be forced to make
non-copyrighted material available to the public, every time they re-printed
older literary works. I received a well-motivated and angry reply by Lars
Aronsson, project leader for Projekt Runeberg, which electronically publishes
Swedish literature. In my naïve excitement, I'd simply been thinking
practically, and overlooked the market aspects of the whole thing.

Digitized text is of course a competitive advantage during re-printing, and my
proposal could hurt the competitive power of a certain company. Another
company could (if my system was applied) steal the text directly from the
publisher and publish the same book as a new edition, which would lead to a
loss for the first company which had paid to have someone enter the text in a
word processor.

The fact remains that it is a waste of human resources to let several people
carry out the monotonous task of re-entering the same text over and over,
instead of storing it in a central location and making it accessible to
everyone - companies as well as individuals. This is one of the disadvantages
of the market economy, which technocracy is trying to address: the market
economy sometimes demands wasting natural resources and duplicating work
efforts. You could make an analogy with the development of the mobile phone
networks, where several small, incompatible networks are being built instead
of one large, stable, and widely adaptable network. Call it greed or
competition - but it's not cost-effective.

Naturally, this wastefulness is actually a good thing according to our
classical yardstick of the public good. GNP increases, and people get
something to do (work). One should, however, ask if people fare well from
this. We're living in a time in which the quality of life is measured by
socioeconomic number-juggling. Is it a good idea to create problems to make
jobs for problem-solvers? To provoke crime in order to employ crime attorneys
and investigators?

The technocrats on the Internet, spearheaded by League for Programming Freedom,
hold the view that good knowledge should not be subject to patent. The
companies, however, do. There's already been open conflict between idealists
and profit-hungry corporate people. I've already touched upon the negative
rumors spread about "stone soup software". Another example is the fighting
over a compression method known as LZW, which is simply a modification of a
public-domain method called LZ2, which originated at Jerusalem University.
Basically, companies can possess so much chutzpah that they take out patents
on methods, developed by idealists, which were originally intended to be
public domain. Companies also have the time and money to sue...

Another direct example of the difference between market-driven and idealistic
thinking is the way various commercial firms are fighting over email services
through the Internet. Swedish Telia has had a taste of technocracy. The
background is as follows: Telia has no problem getting access to the Internet.
The problem is that Telia wants to decide how certain Internet addresses
should appear. It's always a good thing to be able to butter up your customers
with a custom, easily memorized number (Like Swedish Railways' 020-75 75 75)
Sadly, Telia is not in charge of these things on the Internet. The principle
is that all commercial domains on the Internet should have the -COM suffix, as
in COMmercial. Instead, Telia wants to give companies the 400NET prefix, which
happens to be the name of their commercial electronic mail system.

Bernt Allonen at Telia says this in Z-mag@zine, 1/95: "It's time for the
Internet to leave the sandbox? the Internet is in need of strict rules and
operators that guarantee performance." With this he's probably tried to say
that the Internet should be market-driven, like a company - as opposed to the
reality of its current operational mode, namely non-profit/academic - with all
its implications, like rigid bureaucracy, market planning, and little
hierarchies in which the golden rule is: kick downwards, kiss upwards.(7)
Mostly, he would like to see Telia assuming total control of Internet
distribution in Sweden, so that things could become orderly. This is not the
case, and hopefully never will be. Who really cares what Bernt Allonen thinks?
He only represents the expansionist interests of a single large corporation.

The people who hold the most power over the Internet in Sweden are Björn
Eriksen and Peter Löthberg. Both are representatives of the open, technocratic
attitude, and Björn decides which domains (Internet names or addresses) can be
created on the Swedish part of the Internet. To the great chagrin of Telia,
their market plans have no effect whatsoever on these academicians. The
Internet cannot be bought! May Heaven have mercy. The academicians are not at
all concerned about "orderliness" on the Internet. In their eyes, the Internet
primarily exists to be useful, not marketable. Is it a good idea to tell Telia
that all these idealists and academicians have actually succeeded in building
the world's largest computer network completely without competition, market
analysis, and commercial ad campaigns? Now that Telia's X.400-network hasn't
been as successful as the Internet, what is Telia to do? Well, of course they
want the rights to the Internet. Normally, a giant corporation like Telia can
indiscriminately purchase and take over their competitors.

Thinking people, however, are much harder to purchase. Telia represents the
philosophy of the old market theory, which states that people that cannot be
bought for money can be bought for more money. Internet-users, with the
technical universities at the base, have a completely different way of
thinking. If there had been anything else than market tactics behind Telia's
demands, they might have listened. Fortunately, they prefer to continue
thinking. Thanks to this view, no one has a monopoly on the Internet in
Sweden. Hundreds of companies are currently fighting to provide Internet
access. The competition has pushed prices down to an incredibly low level. An
Internet connection is today very affordable for a normal person, and everyone
who has decent knowledge of the process can buy some computers and modems and
start their own Internet node. Variety as opposed to monopoly. From this point
of view, the Internet promotes small operators and resists the efforts of
giant corporations. Again, refer to Rule #3 of hacker ethics:
decentralization.

Rule #3 is also one of the reasons that cyberpunks and others work against
Microsoft, and especially its operating system, Windows. When hundreds of
hackers were arrested during Operation Sundevil, it was because law
enforcement thought that hackers were behind the collapse in the American
telephone system on January 15, 1990. Now, it turned out that hackers had
nothing to do with it. Instead, the collapse was due to an error in the
computer program that controlled the switches. The problem was exacerbated by
the fact that the program was used everywhere, and the switches "brought each
other down". The only switches that worked fine were those that used another,
older program.

Microsoft's Windows is also a program, and more specifically, an operating
system, which means that it's a program that is used to enable the user to run
other programs. Today, it is installed on virtually every PC computer that is
sold in Sweden. Most programs today require Windows in order to function.
Therefore, Windows is used by innumerable private companies and governmental
organizations, including Swedish Railways and the Swedish national defense.
Recently, a new version of Windows, called Windows 95, was released. (8) This
will, among other things, be used to provide easy connections between several
computers, over the Internet and other networks.

Now, what if there was an error similar to that in the American telephone
system's switch software - but inside Windows 95? In that case, every computer
that used Windows 95 would crash. There is no way to prove empirically that a
computer program is free of such errors. It's thus entirely possible -and it's
happened before. Such risks exist with other, nearly monopolizing products,
such as Netscape. A few moronic computer folks might think that it's
impossible, but so was Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so I don't buy that.
And by the way, I also know what I'm talking about. (Pardon the conceited and
provocative comment).

If something like that happened, large parts of Swedish society would be
knocked out. We have a parallel case with the virus that in the fall of 1988
crippled the Internet by putting 6,000 computers out of commission. It was an
error in the Berkely-UNIX (BSD) operating system that allowed this virus to be
created. Some computers were unaffected by the virus - by virtue of using
another "dialect", i.e. another version of UNIX, like NeXT or AIX (there's
about 11 different versions of UNIX). UNIX basically works in the same way as
Windows(9), but there's only one "dialect" of Windows! If all computers had
used the same UNIX in the fall of 1988, well, all of the Internet would have
been brought down! I'm stating that this could happen even to Windows 95, or
one of its successors. If this happened, all Windows 95 systems could crash,
if they were networked. It would be a catastrophe of unpredictable
consequences to society.

This is where it's important to emulate nature. Variety, in which many
different programs work side by side, is preferable. Hackers have always
proposed variety and decentralization. In the long term, software monopolies
are harmful, and lead to problems in computer systems that resemble those that
occur with the inbreeding of living creatures. The only ones able to compete
with Microsoft today is IBM, with its OS/2 operating system, and Apple, with
MacOS. Personally, I look forward to more competition. Variety,
decentralization, and small companies instead of giants and institutionalism
is the only thing that's sustainable in the long term. Microsoft cannot be
allowed to dominate the operating system market. Chaos is fun. And healthy.

The arrests of hackers after the Jan. 1, 1990 incident was a distraction to
obscure the inbreeding within the telephone system and the incompetence of
large companies by blaming hackers for what was really a structural problem.
What are they to be blamed for next?

There are oodles of examples of how the market's been beaten by home-made
solutions. Some computer nerds therefore want to stop this spreading disease
by trying to stop the publicly financed distribution channels. One such
channel is ftp.sunet.se, an Uppsala computer system which stores thousands of
quality, free-of-charge programs. This computer is publicly funded and anyone
can connect through the Internet and retrieve any of these programs. This is
actually a good thing, since all of Sweden's (and the world's) computer
enthusiasts gain access to free programs, but it's naturally a thorn in the
side to those who promote a dogmatic, capitalist system as a way if life.

"The greatest problem with ftp.sunet.se is that it effectively undercuts all
attempts to start domestically based software companies? Software is the
industry of the future, one that we Swedes would have been able to exploit
because of our well-educated populace, if it hadn't been for ftp.sunet.se? But
how are such companies' products supposed to compete with programs that
are 'free' because they have been subsidized by tax revenues?"

(Bertil Jonell, Z-mag@zine #6, 1995)

Here, we have an obvious conflict with another part of the hacker ethic:
Mistrust authority. The answer from the established software industry becomes
mistrust hackers, which is probably justified in the cases that Bertil
mentions above. It is, however, hard to justify this mistrust in the case of
mission-critical software such as those in airplanes or medical equipment,
since it's impossible to find any such programs written by amateurs. The
companies that make such equipment are concerned with their reputation, and
don't hire just any hobby-hacker for just that reason. Instead, they get their
programmers from the more status-filled university education programs.

We shouldn't pay too much attention to what one person has said on one single
occasion. We'll instead treat it as an illustrative example. There is a whole
set of values that we think is God-given, but that is actually not
self-evident at all. It is not an obvious truth that the well-educated
engineer is a better builder of electronics than the kid around the corner
who's been a radio amateur since he could walk. More accurately, it's a
complete untruth. Granted, some enthusiasts migrate to the finer universities
and technical schools, but some of them don't like the formal and strict
environment they encounter at all. They prefer to stay at home in their
garages and study and experiment on their own. That kind of motivation beats
most university education by lengths, when it comes to direct practical
knowledge.

Of course, the at-home hacker is usually an individual that isn't very socially
adaptable, and who also has a penchant for certain suspicious subcultures.
That is most likely the true reason that these skilled hackers aren't hired
for positions where they could do the most good. Instead, they sit at home and
put together freeware for any and all. (I've talked about what happens in the
worst cases in chapter 4 and 10, about underground hackers and computer
crime). A university degree is not only a certificate of competence - it also
indicates that its possessor is socially adept and has the ability for
discipline and obedience that is required at large corporations. A programmer
should have the ability to carry out a project without questioning it. No
large company is interested in employees that think too independently and
develop alternative solutions without permission. Instead, every project is
controlled from a high position within the hierarchy. In short: a university
degree means, in addition to competence, that the bearer has accepted the
authority and power structures that exist within companies as well as
educational institutions.

Stone soups cooked by enthusiasts, with many rival solutions to one problem,
can beat monolithic corporations in competition. It is obvious that this way
of working and looking at the role of the economy in society is part of the
foundation of cyberpunk ideology. But here the respectable university hackers
enter the picture: people who live normal, family lives, but who grew up
with - and created - the first computers during the 70's, and who are now at
forefront of the explosive growth in computer development. Their message is
the same: Freedom of information! The rational world of computing seems to
influence its users in the same vein: towards efficiency, decentralization,
cooperation, and exchange of information, and away from bickering,
bureaucracy, and monotony. I say that this is good. What do you think?

The World of Science
--------------------

To understand how people can work their asses off without making a lot of
money, one must understand how the scientific virtual community works. The
scientific community is a society within society, with its own norms and
ideals. Inside, prestige and knowledge counts the most, not how many stocks
you own or how big your Mercedes is. Researchers, doctoral students, and other
scientists pay to have their creations evaluated by other scientists, simply
for the joy of sharing and promoting science.

The view that information and knowledge is public property is so inherent in
this community that it isn't even questioned. All this information is
published in a few thousand scientific journals across the world, with an
extremely small distribution, created by scientists for scientists. Nowadays,
more and more of these journals are starting to partly or completely employ
electronic publication as a cheaper alternative to print - even within
the "soft" sciences, such as Sociology and Psychology. The scientific
community has been created to free research and science from the social power
apparatus. The only way to do this is by building a culture with its own
framework and values, which the hackers also discovered a long time ago.

As you see, the scientific virtual community share significant aspects with the
hackers' sub-cultural Scene. They exchange information freely among each
other, and ignore the market economy completely.(10) Of course, this throws a
monkey wrench into the theories of most economists, since they'd rather see
everyone acting according to a rational market model, but the scientific
community won't submit to commercialization, no matter how much the rest of
society wants it to. The icing on the cake is that the rest of society is
dependent on the scientific community. Without science, little progress is
made, and the schooling of new CEOs, engineers, psychologists, etc. is
completely at the mercy of scientific realms. Therefore, society at large is
forced to financially support these scientists. Graciously, the scientists in
turn support hackers and some other subcultures by offering free access to
computers.

Why do the scientists help the hackers? Simple. They depend on them. The
hackers yield many of the ideas for new inventions and research areas.
Additionally, many of them work at the universities and technical schools.
Some work at the companies that sell information services, and some are even
to be found in the IT departments of the largest corporations. It is actually
the case that the rest of society is dependent on both the scientific
community and the Scene of the hackers. The conflicts that emerge are products
of the fact that the technocratic society, led by scientists and hackers, is
growing in power over the regular market-based society.

The reason that the establishment wants to control the funding for the Internet
is, beneath the surface, a very old one: it is concerned about its POWER!

The Market Paradigm
-------------------

We have to try to understand the origins of this conflict. Our society, as it
exists today, is moving towards increasing levels of specialization. Our
entire economic market model is built on it, or rather, on a constantly
increasing degree of specialization. Productivity levels in this system must
perpetually grow, in order to give a number of anonymous stock owners returns
on their investments, so that they can buy and own even more.

If I want to develop software, I need an idea. Then I have to start a company,
hire as many programmers as I need, and find some suitable investors. If I
can't find anyone to finance my venture, my idea must be a poor one, or I've
been looking in the wrong places. When the product is sold, I employ special
services for the replication, distribution, and marketing of the software. Any
CEO at any software company views the process in this manner.

The problem with this view is that there's no room for creative spirit among
the programmers themselves. As a boss, I have to rigidly command them onto the
right track. I must never lose control over the end product, and if the
programmers come up with their own ideas, I'm of course free to listen to
them, but it is still my responsibility as a project leader to decide whether
these ideas will be part of the end product. There is no place for the free
action of the individual in the market-oriented way of thinking. Only the
project leader should know what really goes on with the product, while the
individual programmers should only be concerned with the little piece they're
working on. There is always an inherent hierarchy built into this form of
organization.

Market-economy thinking is also built on a hidden method for hiding knowledge.
It would be unfortunate for the project leader if the programmers realized how
little influence they really have on the creative process. The same goes for
all hierarchically organized companies. The only people that have any idea of
what's actually occurring within a company is supposed to be the leadership.
If the workers are to have any information, it is transmitted through
carefully designed yellow sheets that are dumped in the employees'
pigeonholes, in which chosen parts of the company's activities are exposed in
order to increase motivation.

We're dealing with a power structure that is anything but democratic. This is
the skewed balance of power that is the reason that companies work better than
governments. The absence of democracy is very efficient. It's not a secret
that the democratic offensive into the Swedish business world, in the form of
MBL ("the law of shared decisions") etc., has decreased corporate efficiency.
The workers should act under the orders of management, not by its own will.
Corporate management has therefore invented ingenious mechanisms to limit
democratic control of their companies despite these new laws. These include,
for example, constant reorganization in order to hide the mechanisms of
authority and give the workers a sense of being in control of their own
responsibilities.

The hacker ethic, cyberpunk ideology, and technocracy stand in sharp contrast.
All of these views expect programmers to be creative, inventive, and
skeptical. The market economy assumes that comprehensive plans are not
questioned before they are completed. That's why companies go to great lengths
to hire only engineers from universities and technical schools, who have by
virtue of their degree been through the social indoctrination to not question
(11) Those individuals who question are sent into other parts of the machine
of society: research, politics, and the criminal industry, to produce
information of a kind that is important to society in other ways.(12)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Of course, as of today I've already submitted this text to the public one
time.

2. Which has in fact become the case. I must be psychic.

3. Nowadays, virtually all magazines have an online version. My personal
favorite is "Syber-Starlet" (Translator's note: a magazine very similar to
Seventeen).

4. Maybe just a little bit. Passwords and other things that the users pay for
are often crack and tossed to the four winds?

5. This is a generalized view that presupposes an infinite number of companies,
a great number of different products in the same category, and that
the "market" is an independent filter that is never deceived by propaganda.
This stands in very poor resemblance to reality.

6. Then again, it's probably just a myth.

7. At the moment Telia is undergoing a reorganization which, as everyone who's
studied introductory management knows, is aimed at destroying the social
networks that have formed in the workplace in order to strengthen the upper
echelons' grip on the company.

8. And now Windows NT is the hot thing. And then it'll be Nashville.
Hum-de-hum.

9. I know that the know-it-alls are being driven up the walls by statements
such as this. If it bothers you, write your own book for those who get hung up
on details.

10. Pierre Bourdieu introduces the concept of "cultural capital" in order to
try to explain this trend.

11. A slightly mean (and simplified) statement.

12. Svante Tidholm remarked that I have an ability to sometimes reduce the
individual to a simple puppet for the powers that be. I understand his view,
but I'm not smart enough to get around the way the question is posed. My
respect for the capacity of the individual is very great, and I also take the
side of the individual in this rigged game. An expansion of my views is found
in Chapter 15 as well as the Appendix.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------
Chapter 14: FEMALE HACKERS?
---------------------------

Within computer culture, and especially hacker culture, women are rare. Among
the phreakers, there were (and perhaps still are) a few women, maybe because
telephony is normally considered a female profession. (most switchboard
operators and such are women). Rave culture is a little more equal, with about
a third of the audience being female. Among the hobby hackers and the criminal
hackers, there's only the occasional female enthusiast. Fortunately (I think),
more and more women, especially at the universities, have discovered computers
through the Internet. Often, someone starts out using the computer as a
typewriter, then she hears of online discussion groups and forums for her
major, and once she's tried communication over the Net, she's bitten.

The most famous female hacker went under the pseudonym Susan Thunder. (Allow me
to jump back and forth a bit between the themes of the book). Susan was a
textbook example of a maladjusted girl. She'd been mistreated as a kid, but
was of the survivor kind. She became a prostitute as early as her teens, and
earned her living working LA brothels. On her time off, she was a groupie,
fraternizing with various rock bands. She discovered how easy it was to get
backstage passes for concerts just by calling up the right people and
pretending to be, for example, a secretary at a record company. She became an
active phreaker at the very end of the 70's, and was naturally an expert at
social engineering.

Soon, she hooked up with a couple of guys named Ron and Kevin Mitnick, both
notorious hackers, later to be arrested for breaking into the computers of
various large corporations. Susan's specialty was attacking military computer
systems, which gave her a sense of power. To reach her objectives, she could
employ methods that would be unthinkable for male hackers: she sought out
various military personnel and went to bed with them. Later, while they were
sleeping, she could go through their clothes for usernames and passwords.
(Many people kept these written down on pieces of paper in order to remember
them). Susan therefore hacked so that she could feel a sense of power or
influence in this world, despite her hopeless social predicament. For her,
hacking was a way to increase her self-esteem.

She was determined to learn the art of hacking down to the finest details. When
her hacker friend, Ron, didn't take her completely seriously, she became angry
and did everything she could to get him busted. Another reason for her anger
was, supposedly, that she had had short relationship with him but he had
chosen another, more socially acceptable girlfriend over her. It was probably
Susan who broke into U.S. Leasing's systems and deleted all the information
off one computer, filling it with messages such as "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK
YOU", and programming the printers to continuously spit out similar insults.
Among all the profanities, she wrote the names Kevin and Ron. The incident led
to the first conviction of the legendary Kevin.

When Ron and Kevin were arrested, Susan was given immunity from prosecution in
return for witnessing against them. Later, she referred to herself as a
security expert, and conspicuously demonstrated how easily she could break
into military computers. It is beyond all doubt that Susan really had enormous
capabilities, and that she really could access top-secret information in
military systems. It is less certain that she could fire nuclear missiles. It
is clear that she couldn't do it using only a computer. Possibly, with her
access to secret phone numbers, personal information, and security codes, she
might have been able to trick the personnel at a silo into firing a missile. I
really hope that she couldn't. Stories about hackers like Susan provided the
basic idea for the movie War Games. Susan has currently abandoned hacking in
favor of professional poker playing, which she engages in with great success.

However, Susan is more of the exception that confirms the rule when it comes to
hacking as a male endeavor. This phenomenon has lots of candidate
explanations, ranging from moronic propositions that computers are unfeminine
because they were invented by men (like the sowing machine, the coffee maker,
and the telephone), to suggestions that women are somehow alien to the
internal competition for status and arrogance that characterizes hackers. All
of this is naturally bullshit.

The real reason to the inequality within the computing world is probably that
many women are raised to fulfill passive roles. While men learn to
passionately engage themselves in discussion over, for example, things on the
TV screen, women learn to passively observe and act as social complements on
the sidelines. Passion, assertiveness, and arrogance, all typical
characteristics of hackers, are seldom encouraged. Women are taught a
superficially passive demeanor, in which their only possibility for action is
by entrusting it to the hands of men. All exploration of new territory
apparently has to be done by men. (Preferably young men). As an example, look
at our traditional way of handling emotional and sexual relations, where the
general trend is still that men take the initiative and women should provide
the passive, nurturing factor. Another factor is that men are more solitary
than women. It's an open subject as to why this is, but it is obvious that it
is incredibly difficult to break this pattern.

Since hackers are normally of an age in which it is very important to
externally display one's gender identity, many women distance themselves from
computers out of fear of seeming "unfeminine". This act, which is perceived as
an autonomous decision by the individual, is actually part of the social
indoctrination of traditional gender roles. Parents and relatives add to this
by giving computers almost exclusively to boys, and almost never to girls.
Among the home computer hackers during the period of 1980-89, about 0.3 % were
female, according to rough estimates. In the U.S., there was a female Apple II
cracker who managed to liberate around 800 games from their copy protection.
In Europe, the most famous female hackers were part of the TBB (The Beautiful
Blondes) group, which specialized in C64 and consisted of four women under the
pseudonyms of BBR, BBL, BBD, and TBB, of which BBR and TBB were programmers.
They became known on the Scene through a number of demos toward the end of the
80's. Cynically enough, both BBR and TBB died in 1993, not even reaching the
age of 20. Among today's Amiga and PC enthusiasts, the proportion of women is
a little higher, somewhere around 1% (Source: The Mistress in Skyhigh "17,
1995).

At MIT, the cradle of hacker culture, there weren't any women at all. There
were female programmers who used the machines, and even really good ones, but
they never developed the obsession found among the young men at MIT. These
hackers thought it had to be a matter of genetic differences that caused the
women to not fall into this obsession. This is a dangerous opinion and
absolutely untrue. According to statistics, most boys who become intensively
engaged in computing are around 14-15 years old. The same preoccupation occurs
in women too, but usually about two years earlier, since their biological
clock dictates it. Most people know what 12-year-old girls can get caught up
in with such intense interest that they forget social duties and just concern
themselves with the hobby for its own sake. The women's (or, rather, the
girls') equivalent of the rather fickle but enchanting object known as the
computer, is another object with similar characteristics - a four-legged one,
which we usually call a horse. In many cases the similarities are striking,
even though it is difficult to prove that the same mechanisms lie behind it.
Programming a computer is really not that different from teaching a horse to
jump fences. It includes the same measure of competition, control, and
ceremony. With the boys in front of the computer, there's an almost empathic
passion, just like it is with the girls in the stables.

It's completely obvious that if this trend continues, men will acquire the
power in a future society largely built on computer technology. It would be a
good thing if more women used computers. Even hackers are generally positively
of a positive attitude towards seeing more women in their male-dominated
fields. The few women that exist on the Scene have been very successful, and
received lots of attention as "exotic" phenomena. The respect for female
hackers is very great. Supposedly, there are also female hackers who have
hidden their gender and are assumed to be male by their hacker friends. The
thrill of playing out such a role isn't hard to understand. For the first time
in history, it's been possible to assume a gender opposite of one's own
without great difficulty, and for a woman to really be treated like a man.

The German police sometimes use this respect for female hackers to bust hackers
and software pirates. By publishing posts and ads on BBSs and in computer
magazines, using female names, they attract the attention of their targets. It
is a matter of argument whether it's ethically correct to exploit people's
emotions in this manner in order to fight crime, and it obviously does no
service to equality. It becomes even more difficult for women to break into a
sub-culture where they might be suspected of being law enforcement moles.

Pornography, etc.
-----------------

One cannot fail to note the preponderance of male chauvinism on the Internet
and in the home-computing world. Basically, it all started with the game
Softporn for the Apple II, by the Sierra On-Line computer company, and the
even more successful sequel for the IBM PC: Leisure Suit Larry. The object of
the two games is the same: getting women into bed. The fact that the Internet
is crawling with soft- and hardcore pornography doesn't help things either.
Whether or not this is a sign of a screaming need for sexual stimulation among
male computer users is hard to say. (In any case, there's no shortage of
pictures of naked men). Naturally, it's less embarrassing to download pictures
to your computer than going out and buying porn mags - since no one can see
what you're doing. (As far as you know, at least).

A large part of the pictures available on the Internet are marketing tools for
different pay-BBSs, from which you can retrieve even more pictures - if you
pay? As usual there is, in the porn industry, a ruthless commercial interest
in the Internet. Sex sells, and the Net is used as bait in a new and lucrative
market. I'm going to emphasize that this is mostly a trend in the U.S. I have
yet to hear of a Swedish BBS that works this way - instead, in Sweden it's
free to download the pictures, which the users engage in with abandon. A few
porn magazines have opened their own Internet zones which users have to pay to
gain access to.

Some PC enthusiasts have gotten a bug for collecting porn pictures, and collect
them in the same manner as others collect stamps or trading cards. Actually,
this hobby isn't anything strange. During the early years of hacking, many
collected thousands of computer games just to have them. It was forbidden,
since the manufacturers claimed that copying the games was prohibited.
Pornography is both taboo and copyright-protected, since they are almost
always scanned from porn magazines. It should be added that the porn industry
is less than pleased with this type of distribution.

Censoring these pictures on the network is virtually impossible, and not
necessarily desirable. The Internet is based on the supposition that you
search for the information that you're interested in, and that you thereby
bypass information that you find irrelevant, and this is the philosophy that
colors the attitude of those who maintain the network. Whoever publishes the
information holds the responsibility, and the middleman cannot be blamed for
anything. It would be just as consistent to accuse Telia or the postal service
of being accessories in crime for not conducting enough surveillance and
letter-scanning. Communication should be free.

SUNET (Swedish University NETwork), under the command of Björn Eriksen,
distributes the Internet in Sweden. They have so far consistently refused to
interfere with the flow of information. (And I hope they never will).
Individual universities, however, have (following public awareness) started to
block certain discussion groups with themes such as piracy, sex, suicide, and
drugs. Blocking pictures in general, however, is much more tricky, not to say
impossible. If someone encrypts the pictures, it becomes completely impossible
to stop them. The only thing you can do is monitor the pictures stored on the
computers inside your own organization, which has led to public intervention
against pornography at the Lund and Umeå universities, among others.

If you really wanted to crush the market for the porn industry, you could
simply remove its entitlement to copyrights for its products. This would
immediately ruin the market for the established industry, and force the
companies to go bankrupt in just a couple of years. I will, for the sake of
clarity, add that most women who are actively involved with BBSs and the
Internet take the whole thing in good stride. If someone insults them with
profanities, they usually respond with the text version of a pat on the
head - "There, there, calm down now", or something similar.

Even if cyberspace is male-dominated, we can comfort ourselves with the fact
that the world's first programmer, George Byron's daughter Ada Lovelace, was a
woman. Ada was a real hacker, by the classic definition. She was the product
of a failed marriage between Byron and Annabella Milbanke. Just like many
contemporary hackers, she escaped painful emotions by dedicating herself to
the natural sciences together with her friend Charles Babbage, and completely
immersed herself in the quest to construct the analytical machine.

----------------------------------
Chapter 15: THE CYBERNETIC SOCIETY
----------------------------------

I will now try to summarize what I've written so far, and synthesize this with
a number of modern philosophical ideas about people and our society. A
cybernetic society is a society of people who live in symbiosis with machines.
To understand a society, I employ a simplified concept of an individual, in
which he or she is viewed as a construct of information, communicating with
the environment by means of symbols.

            +========+
         +==| Memory |==+
         |  +=||==/\=+  |            |
         |    \/  ||    |         <--|--<
         |  Individual  |            |   Environment
         |    /\  ||    |         >--|-->
         | +--||--\/--+ |            |
         | | Thoughts | |         Symbols
         +=+==========+=+

In the figure, memory stands for the stored patterns in the brain's neurons,
thought is the reflections and dreams (daydreams included) that we all have,
and the symbols are those chunks of information we exchange with the
environment, which can be single individuals as well as the entire family or
society that we live in. Such symbols can be human language, but also other
conventions that we don't think about much, such as pieces of paper with
numbers on them perceived as possessing value, or a certain type of clothing
perceived as indicating a certain status. For natural reasons, science uses
well-defined symbols called paradigms, which define:

1. What to observe

2. What questions to ask

3. How the questions should be asked

4. How the answers should be interpreted

(I'll take the opportunity to state that I interpret the
sociological-scientific concept of a symbol, as well as the concept of a
paradigm, in a very pragmatic and personal manner - raise a hand, whoever
cares. This is high-level hermeneutics. Pardon the ten-dollar words).

It is these concepts that the hackers, with Zen and Gödel behind them, contest
in their motto number 4: Hackers should be judged for their hacking, not
according to suspicious criteria such as academic performance, age, race, or
social status, and in 3: Distrust authority. It's an attempt to break out of a
system that is perceived as wrong. Marvin (the guy with the telephone cards)
spoke in a radio interview of his dissatisfaction with companies hiring people
with degrees instead of caring about their real skills and in this way pointed
out the shortcomings in our formal social system. Burroughs thought that
society would try to increasingly control the thoughts of its citizens,
whether its public servants wanted to or not. It is said that an enlightened
individual must have the ability to exit the system to see the real patterns
behind it, which can't be described using words, paper, or clothing. At the
same time, the symbols are vital to our communication as well as our society
as a whole. An intelligent individual can, using symbols, detect intelligence
in him- or herself as well as in other individuals. We can now view society
from a similar perspective:

            +========+
         +==| Memory |==+
         |  +=||==/\=+  |            |
         |    \/  ||    |         <--|--<
         |   Society    |            |   Environment
         |    /\  ||    |         >--|-->
         | +--||--\/--+ |            |
         | | Thoughts | |         Symbols
         +=+==========+=+

But what's this? It looks just the same! That's right. In this case, memory is
the collective memory in the form of books, films, CDs, or computer programs,
stored in libraries or in our homes. Thought is the same as culture, the
ongoing process that continuously affects our living conditions. Note also
that the symbols, in this case our relationship towards other societies or
aggregations, is not the same as our culture. Sociologists often refer to this
model as the collective consciousness. As for myself, I've nailed together the
concept of superindividual for this model.

The symbols show only those parts of our thoughts, culture, that we want to
show. As is well known, this is also how an individual works. An intelligent
society detects intelligence in other societies and individuals. The
individuals that make up society can very well endeavor to analyze the
thoughts that society thinks, but the task is virtually insurmountable, like
if the individual neurons in our brains were to try to understand the thoughts
of the entire brain. (These arguments originate in research of artificial
intelligence in non-formal systems and sociological science). This model is
not limited to describing societies and individuals as intelligent organisms,
but can also be applied to corporations, military organizations, and others.
It is this formal system, the complex society, which sociologists study as
scientists, William Burroughs criticizes as an author, and Zen debunks as a
philosophy.

Now that we've agreed on a common view of individuals and societies, we can
start defining cybernetics. I said earlier that cybernetics means people or
society in symbiosis with machines. To illustrate, here's a practical example:

                              |
         +--------------+  <--|--<  +--------------+
         | Individual A |     |     | Individual B |
         +--------------+  >--|-->  +--------------+
                              |
                           Symbols

We see two individuals, A and B, communicating by way of symbols. So far
there's no problem. If we, for example, suppose that these individuals
communicate by sending letters to each other, a problem could occur if one of
them has a slight vision problem.

                             ++
         +--------------+    ||<-- +--------------+
         | Individual A |    ||    | Individual B |
         +--------------+ -->||     +--------------+
                             ++
                          Obstacles

Since people are so ingenious, they naturally find a way around this problem.
They attempt to improve their natural conditions. I will illustrate this with
an invention that was created around 1290 AD:


         +--------------(0) <----<  +--------------+
         | Individual A |           | Individual B |
         +--------------(0) >---->  +--------------+
                          \
                           \
                            `-Glasses

We have here one of the very first cybernetic innovations. Reality has been
improved by a small opto-mechanical construction that we take for granted in
today's society. All people that wear glasses are therefore cyborgs, people
who live out their days on Earth in harmony with machines. We're so used to
this that we hardly ever think about it. If you're a little more vain, you can
get contact lenses, and then you invite the machine into your own body.
Glasses constitute one of the modifications that are meant to improve our
ability to communicate with the rest of the world. Other cybernetic
modifications are aimed at making life more comfortable and bearable for the
individual: the wheelchair, the cane, etc. Some are vital, like the pacemaker.
Of course, now I've just listed inventions that "correct" human disabilities.
Naturally, you can "improve" regular people too, with the aid of binoculars,
electronic devices for night vision, etc. The telephone, for example, improves
us so as to allow us to communicate over enormous distances. We can also
establish hyper-communication.

                              |
         +--------------+  <--|--<  +--------------+
         | Individual A |     |     | Individual B |
         +--------------+  >--|-->  +--------------+
                              |
                         Hypersymbols
                         = Extended Information Flow

One such medium is hypertext, which is better than normal text. We can also
improve our possibilities as a society to exchange and distribute information
with the help of transaction systems, satellite TV, etc. Yet another
improvement of our perception - and the most revolutionary - will be Virtual
Reality. There are, however, a few uncanny aspects of this society. Like, for
example, the previously mentioned NetNanny, or when Aftonbladet on July 15,
1995, reassuringly announced that TV sets can now be fitted with a chip that
is programmable by parents who don't want their children to watch excessively
violent, pornographic, or otherwise unsuitable programs. When the kids try to
tune in to a blocked program, the screen turns blue. Fantastic. The question
is just who is being programmed: the chip or the children? One of the parents
interviewed by Aftonbladet wants to prevent the kids from watching, among
other things, SOS - På Liv och Död (cf. the American TV show Rescue 911),
which is a program that shows films of real accidents and rescue efforts.
What's next? Isn't it just as well to turn off those terrible news, so that
you can raise your children in a protective bubble, as far removed from the
world as the Russians ever were under Stalin? The risk of abuse of this, and
similar, invention is terrible and great.

And this was only an example of what a relatively stupid chip can accomplish.
We are already forced to note that our society is no longer formed solely by
people, and that not even people are formed solely by other people. When
almost every store has electronic anti-theft systems on every product, there's
no longer a need for honesty as a virtue, because it becomes impossible to act
dishonestly - and thus, moral limits are turned into real, physical limits
with the help of technology. We are so singularly obsessed with the public
good provided by these machines that we don't question what is happening. A
store alarm is nothing to complain about, since it only concerns itself with
thieves? One fine day, we'll be hanging around with machines that
automatically inject sedatives into all individuals with violent tendencies,
naturally only to prevent them from committing violent crimes. That's no
concern of yours, is it? You're not a violent criminal. Or?

Just to give an example from a few years ago: in 1984,(1) the computer at
Värnpliktsverket (the Swedish national military conscription administration)
experienced problems with the result that orders to report for rehearsal
training were not sent to all personnel that were obliged to do so. These
people received phone calls from authoritarian military officers that
interrogated them as to why they hadn't reported for duty. The authorities had
received information from a computer, presumed to be reliable, that orders to
report had in fact been sent. What's interesting here is not so much that a
computer could experience an error, but that it could really control a large
military organization. Some of our most respectable military institutions
therefore have names that could be used as product labels for various computer
brands.

Then, there's artificial intelligence. When intelligent agents enter the
picture, complexity increases. We may be forced to ask ourselves if it's
perhaps the case that we interact with digital individuals, seemingly
possessing their own free wills. A digital individual is created when a
computer system becomes so complex that it gains a consciousness, similar to
that of humans. This probably hasn't happened yet at the time you read this.
The most disturbing example I can think of is a program from Hectare Ltd,
which can generate trashy novels for women, i. e. stuff similar to Barbera
Cartland's, in a never-ending stream. If you ever suspected that a computer
could generate mainstream fiction, your fears have been realized. The program
really works, and it's not even very large and comprehensive. Similar programs
can reformulate pre-written passages to infuse them with a certain style of
writing.

One of the most dangerous power factors with AI is that it can easily produce
an endless flow of seemingly intelligent bull, which diverts attention from
real problems. To coin a conspiracy theory, I'll propose that there are
already publications whose content is wholly or partially computer-generated.
Those who wrote the programs are probably mostly concerned with making money
and don't care whatsoever about the moral aspects. Wouldn't you? The public
doesn't notice. They think they see a human, but it's really a robot. But then
again - what's the difference? Curtains.


+------------+    |    +---------------------+    |    +------------+
| Individual | <--|--- | Digital Individual: | <--|--- | Individual |
|     A      | ---|--> | Translating Agent   | ---|--> |     B      |
+------------+    |    +---------------------+    |    +------------+
               Symbol:                         Symbol:
               English                         Japanese

This is just one of the many possible applications of artificial intelligence.
It is the case, however, that the digital individual will one day become so
intelligent that it can produce a dialog without any input from one of the
persons speaking. The established authorities can then control the individual
in any manner they choose. Imagine calling the utility company about having no
hot water. You think you're speaking with a human, but you're actually talking
to a computer. Everything you say is turned into statistics, with no need for
the responsible parties to react to any criticism. The powers that be can
filter out your complaints in order to make independent, emotionally neutral
decisions? and right about here the argument becomes so fuzzy that I might as
well leave it to the reader to finish. (I'm not really a philosopher, just a
dabbler in the art). It is at least an amusing thought experiment.

Cybernetic Society vs. Copyright
--------------------------------

It is obvious that the cybernetic social model entails changes in our way of
viewing information and its role in society. Some things that we now take for
granted may become fundamentally altered. An example: copyright. Copyright is
the right to own information, or in the case of a patent, the right to own
knowledge and make money from it. In jargon, it's called intellectual
property. Copyright was created in conjunction with the art of printing, since
before that time it wasn't very important to know who owned information and
the right to publish it. All knowledge and ideas were in those days considered
public domain, and not property. Information was free. Th possibility of
owning information is inseparable from the presence of machines like the
printing press, fax machines, or computers. Without these, the book, painting,
etc., become unique works of art as opposed to a mass of reproducible
information. Thus, copyright is an attribute of the early cybernetic society
that associates information and knowledge with economy. This applies to all
information, printed text or photographs, film or software.

We can then trace the origin of copyright to the emergence of the printed
symbol. To emphasize the importance of this development (in order to
strengthen the argument), I will summarize the development of modern symbols
below:

Symbol             Population           Cultural Basis            Time Period
------             ----------           --------------            -----------
Primitive symbols  Animals              Genetic culture           Prehistoric
Speech             People               Oral culture              40,000 B.C.
Text               Civilization         Written culture           3,000 B.C.
Print              Industrial society   Distributed mass-culture  1,500 A.D.
Hypersymbols       Information society  Information culture       2,000 A.D

The dates indicate the origin of the respective symbol, rather than the date it
became widely used. Normally, the transition from oral to written culture is
considered to have taken place around 500 B.C., and printed material wasn't
very widespread before the Enlightenment (1700s and 1800s). The first date is
very hard to ascertain. This is really not that important: the question is not
one of dates, but of the history of symbols. It is clear that information
technology is causing a change in society which effects are comparable to that
of the printing press (at least!).

Symbols change with time. What we consider valuable today can become worthless
tomorrow. For example, most people think gold is valuable. If, let's say, a
small planet made of gold collided with the Earth, making gold the most common
metal on the planet, our view would instantly change to where gold was worth
less than iron. By the same token, we would gladly trade all of our gold for
food if we were starving, since we also have certain physical needs. You could
even say that we have psychological needs, which are (in our modern society)
largely generated by advertising, making us willing to trade our economic
means, in monetary form, for stereos, sodas, etc. We thus have a conception of
the value of things that is based on supply and demand. Supply and demand are
controlled partly by nature, and partly by other people. This is what makes us
consumers. These concepts are found in all major ideologies.

When other people want to influence our consumption, they use symbols to do so.
This can be done by, for example, establishing a certain brand of clothing as
synonymous with the symbol called status, or a brand of soda as synonymous
with freshness and youthfulness. But this is only the most conspicuous part of
the top of the iceberg. In reality, our entire societal system is built by
symbols. This is what sociologists cal symbolic interactionism, which is a
scientific theory usually associate with a guy named George Herbert Mead -
something of a genius of a philosopher, who unfortunately didn't directly
write anything, but had a great influence on the field of sociology. Mead
defined many of the symbols I've mentioned in this chapter. Mead also touched
upon the concepts that will be found later on; among other things, he
suggested that the French Revolution was a turning point in modern history,
where people for the first time realized that they had a right to change or
correct society, and that the state wasn't based on some divine principle.
Philosophically speaking, he was a pragmatist who thought that ideas and
theories should be checked against reality before being awarded any value or
authority. Mead for sure was a supporter of the hands-on imperative. (The
pragmatic school of thought is an extension of fallibilism, which is basically
the same as Zen).

Ok, fine. What about copyright, then? That's the point I'm supposed to get to.
We, as the people of the Earth, have reached an agreement that says that we
should view information and knowledge as property. This concept of property,
or ownership, is a symbol that we endorse. With the introduction of the
information society, the morality created by these symbols becomes fuzzy, to
say the least. Morality, or ethics, tells you that you shouldn't trespass on
the territory of others, not to harm, not to steal someone else's property.
These are commonly accepted moral imperatives when it comes to material
property. But when it comes to intellectual property, protected by copyright
and patents, we've reached a breaking point. IT forces us to re-examine these
principles: it is immoral to enter certain commands in a certain order from
your keyboard. Other command sequences are fully acceptable. I can program my
own computer, but not someone else's over a network. I am permitted to copy
some programs as much as I want to, some not at all, and some with conditions.
We become uncertain of what to think, and some succumb to dogmatic
condemnation of software piracy, in order to be certain.

Since legislation isn't the same thing as corporate policy, I get mixed
signals, like when the gaming company Nintendo asserted that it was forbidden
to engage in second-hand sales of computer games. Of course Nintendo is of
this opinion, since if people can only buy new games, that lets Nintendo sell
more of them and make more money. Under Swedish law, Nintendo doesn't have a
leg to stand on. We are faced with conflicting messages from the government
and established industry, with the result that we start thinking on our own.
Since corporations share economic power with governments, we view both as
authorities. We start questioning these authorities - we start thinking
independently, and make our own decisions in the absence of clear directives
from society. Remember, once again, Rule #3: Distrust authority. The hackers'
ethic leads the way through turbulent times.

The hackers discovered severe injustice with regards to information. On the
Scene, the 13-14-year-old hackers couldn't for their life understand why only
the youths with rich parents should have access to all the fun software. Among
the phreakers, there was total disbelief over why only companies and
institutions should be allowed free communications - since this was a way to
grow! Why accept this? Granted, one could call this lack of respect and lack
of understanding of the workings of society, etc. However, no one lowered
himself or herself to discussing the issue. The message that the hackers
received from the establishment was: "You are criminals. Period." What amazing
hypocrisy!

I conclude that the more cybernetic a society becomes, the more difficult it
becomes to define private domains of knowledge. The more computers and the
more refined technology we get, the more meaningless the concept of
intellectual property becomes. This is especially the case with software, for
which patents are granted for methods that didn't require any large investment
in research and equipment, but only perhaps one or two nights of intensive
hacking. The ideas didn't cost anything - it's mostly a case of "early bird
gets the worm", and it gets the only worm. It is no longer possible to defend
intellectual injustice with material analogies.

This forces us to pose the question: where is the line between freedom of
expression and property? What may I copy and what may I not copy? When does
knowledge cease to be public property and change into private property? What
is happening is that technology is de-boning our entire social systems,
holding up its skeleton for all to view. We can see how large areas of
cyberspace has arbitrarily been sold out to the profit-hungry gold diggers of
the information industry.

Software is an extension of the human mind: of the ability to create,
understand, and generalize knowledge. To reserve such a powerful tool only for
those who can afford to burn hundreds of dollars on it is not sustainable in
the long term. I'm not saying that parasites like the Chinese Triads or other
piracy syndicates should be allowed to take the right of ownership from the
large companies. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be prohibited for
private individuals to freely distribute software and help each other use it.
This doesn't exclude competition from established companies, as long as they
can provide something that the local hacker can't: printed manuals, 24-hour
service, instructional resources, etc. Who knows these things better than the
one who created the software? Software is a product that lacks inherent value.
It is not the ownership of software that drives society forward, it is the
ability to use it, and to teach others to use it. What we should buy and sell
in the information society isn't software, but applications and advice - in
one word: Support.

As necessary as copyright was in the industrial society, as meaningless it is
in the information society. The problem is not separating printed information
from electronic information. The problem is that it's no longer possible to
separate information from knowledge, and owned knowledge from public
knowledge. The line between an idea and the application of the same is being
erased as people communicate more and more using machines that have been
constructed for that very purpose. By extension, the line between thought and
action is also threatened by the development of virtual reality.

Let the software companies fight syndicates, mafias, and criminal groups that
make a killing off piracy - this doesn't bother me at all. But, for God's
sake, don't condemn the private copying of software between friends with no
profit interests involved! This distribution is not immoral, but simply a way
of transmitting knowledge. It is wrong if such copying is illegal, and it
should be permitted for private individuals to copy as much as they want. It
is the dirty money that should be removed from the software business, not the
burning interest and enthusiasm of the amateurs! The moral limit is not drawn
over the right to copy programs or not, but the right to make money from a
program or not! This is the right that should be reserved for the author, if
he or she so wishes.

In Sweden, today, I can go into any public library, retrieve any book that I
want, go to the copy machine and copy as many pages as I want. Some
legislator, in a moment of clarity, realized that preventing this would be an
infringement on the freedom of the individual and the possibility of personal
development *Code 1993:1007). Information gives birth to intelligence! There
is no reason that this freedom should be limited to printed matter. Films,
CDs, computer programs? it's only a matter of definition. All of this is
information, and nourishment for human intelligence. It is not healthy for the
individual to be prevented from copying information. It is sick. SICK!

Patenting a certain sequence of characters - strings of information - sound
waves and videograms - insanity. If the people who first invented words for
human language thought in those terms, we would have never learned to read or
write. Whistling a patented song on the town square one sunny afternoon is
a "public broadcast", and royalties should be paid for it. When you're not
engaged in making a profit off information - which is by extension to increase
your power - when you're simply out to spread joy and knowledge, then
information should be free. Period.

There's no point in dragging out an argument about it, and legislate left and
right. Sooner or later, we'll reach the jaywalking criteria (Translator's
note: in Sweden, it's only illegal to jaywalk if you end up actually
interfering with traffic): this is when a crime becomes so common and
widespread that it's pointless to fight it, like jaywalking or copying music
CDs to tape. Rather, governments and legislators should concern themselves
with their own integrity.(2)

Conceptual Breakdown (Copyright Does Not Exist!)
------------------------------------------------

With the decreased clarity of our symbols, what should we expect to happen? To
have something to build on, I will with impunity borrow an idea from Thomas
Kuhn. Kuhn is a philosopher of science, who has exciting ideas about the way
science grows and changes over time. Kuhn's theories are reminiscent of ideas
of social development, the emergence of various ideologies, and how we humans
grow and change our environment in general. In short: the man describes what
happens when people use their intelligence. The most thrilling part about
Kuhns theories is that they are very reminiscent of Gödel's theory of formal
systems. The basic premise is the following: you have a clear picture of the
world, a paradigm(3), such as:

You know that information can be owned, because otherwise this and that company
would go bankrupt, and that means this or that to you, which is not good, and
therefore you should accept that information can be owned.

Or:

You know that money is valuable since it's based on the country's productivity
and quality compared to other countries, and therefore you should accept that
a note with some numbers on it is worth money, so that the government (and
other governments) doesn't suffer a crisis of public confidence, because then
your standard of living is threatened. (Note: slight sarcasm here. Other
people might say this in complete seriousness, though ;)

Kuhn thought that paradigms changed over time like this:

Paradigm -> normal conditions -> Inconsistencies -> Crisis -> Revolution -> New
Paradigm

With the premise that people generally develop norms (rules for action, bases
for judgment) in the same way that scientists form paradigms (models, bases
for judgment), I'm applying this system to our society. (Norms and paradigms
are kind of the same - both are grounded in human intelligence, and are
oriented towards bringing order out of chaos by erecting philosophical
systems). These conceptual systems live around us while we don't think about
them. For example, there's no law of nature that says we have to divide the
day into 24 hours - we would do just as well with 10 or 50. No one forced us
to separate musical tones into 12 per octave, because 8 or 16 would work fine
too. We define our environment in common terms to avoid conceptual confusion.
Sometimes we reflect on these concepts so rarely that we take them for
granted, as a natural order, and for that reason we consider people who come
up with new conceptual systems delusional. William S. Burroughs expresses this
more conspiratorially and ruthlessly:

"There is no true or real 'reality' - 'Reality' is simply a more or less
constant interpretive pattern - the pattern that we accept as 'reality' has
been forced upon us by the authorities of this planet, a system of power that
primarily seeks total control."

(From Nova Express)

When Erik Satie, the poor genius, played his furniture music which broke with
traditional patterns of musical creation, he got booed out. When Picasso broke
with classical art concepts, many considered him to be an idiot. Cross your
heart - how many of you has not at some point complained about art which "you
can't see what it's supposed to be"? Gödel went so far as to prove that even
something like time is subjectively perceived, philosopher or not. With
hackers, we find this rebelliousness in, for example, the B1FF language, where
our pre-established notions of the functions of signs are given a serious
twist. Many BBS and Internet users write flaming posts when they see someone
write a sentence like: y0YO!#%$!! wH4+zZ h4pP3n1n' 4r0uN '3r3 +H3zZ3
d4yZzZ?#$!%??. The question repeats itself: how groundbreakingly creative are
you allowed to be? And at which points in time?

From the start, after some turbulent times we've established a closed
conceptual system that we have accepted, we live in a stable condition where
production and consumption live in harmony with an established societal
system, with all that it brings of class divisions and territorial thinking.
Now, when the information society brings things to a head, internal
inconsistencies emerge inside the system. Is money really based on production?
What are the production forces, in that case? Can knowledge be owned or not?
This is the period in which our society currently finds itself, and will
remain in for quite some time. This is the turbulent era of the
post-industrial society. We are breaking out of the complete,
near-mathematical system that our society has been stuck in, almost like Gödel
broke out of mathematical systems and Zen debunks philosophical theories with
direct answers. The Patriarchy, which the feminists want to break down, is
another system whose foundations are cracking. (Within sociological science,
this condition is called anomie, which means that there is a lack of
functioning norms in society, like in today's post-Soviet Russia). This phase
is also characterized by mushrooming subcultures and a reinforcement in
religious sects, both of which are a result of an anxious search for definite
norms not found in ordinary society. Eventually, there will be a crisis that
precedes the real information revolution. This is when the most comprehensive
societal changes will take place. (We are talking about a social revolution,
no necessarily a bloody one). After this revolution, we form a new set of
assumptions about how society should function, and it is only then that we
have achieved the real information society. Many micro- and macroeconomic
equations (or axioms, to be scientifically nit-picky) that are valid in the
industrial society will become totally worthless in the information society.

In order for the changes to occur at all, someone has to push them through,
committed to partially tearing down old norms to make room for new ones,
albeit with some respect for the old society. These are Nietzsche's disciples,
or in our case, the most militant cyberpunks with the hackers at the front,
who dare to stand for their ideals in a new age. To quote Nietzsche
himself: "I'm not closed-minded enough to stick to only one system, not even
my own!" It's about tearing down the norms of industrial society to make way
for the ones that will put information society on track. It doesn't have to
occur outside the established system; what Nietzsche (and others) says is that
it may.

Since the 50's and 60's, the younger generation has assumed the role as
pattern-breakers, questioning old systems and building new ones. In
Nietzsche's time, students and intellectuals were the most rebellious. There's
been a shift to where radical ideas are associated with youth, and
conservative ideas with age. This is one of the worst pathologies of our
system of roles - many young people actually dislike the role as
revolutionaries, and become, like in Tom Petty's partially self-biographical
song Into The Great Wide Open, rebels without a clue. The pressure to revolt
can in some cases become the straw that breaks the camel's back, pushing
youngsters into crime and drug abuse. Many acts of rebellion are unfounded and
arbitrary, aimed solely at provoking more conservative older folks - but there
are some acts that are justified. The revolt against the informational
dictatorship of corporations and governments is not unreasonable. It is an
ideologically grounded revolution, which deserves being taken seriously.

Tolerance for new concepts and points of view is one factor that determines how
closed or streamlined a society is. Nietzsche, in his time, appreciated the
majestic music of Richard Wagner, which was another attempt to break out of a
degenerating musical paradigm. Even though Hitler later admired both Wagner
and Nietzsche, nazism was an ideology that condemned any effort to create new
systems of concepts. Towards the end of the 30'', they organized an exposition
in Berlin for "ugly" art, mostly modern, which they considered sick or
twisted. That's the nature of fascism: after a shining ascension, it loses all
interest in creativity and strives only to preserve itself. Can a society like
ours, with corporations large enough to intimidate governments, accept an
orderly and reasonable debate about the existence of copyright? Or will the
system violently seize the power to decide what is public and private
property, bypassing pesky democratic channels through lobbying and executive
decrees with no debate whatsoever?

Dear readers: I suppose that on your journey through this book, you've
discovered how close we really are to the information society.

It's my honest and upright opinion that such a society will either be free of
copyright and software patents as they exist today, or it will be an
informational dictatorship run by either governments, corporations, or mafias.
The latter is the society William Gibson warns us of in his cyberpunk novels.
Let's avoid it. I have do not know exactly how this change will occur, nor
what the final result will be, just that it will take place.

Cybernetic Society vs. Class Perspectives - The Mechanisms of Power
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The British sociologist Basil Bernstein(4) viewed the mechanisms of society
like this:

      ,--------- CLASS ---------,
     \ /           .           \ /
      `           / \           `
   Production      |   Sociocultural
   Sphere          |    Reproduction
     |             |          Sphere
   Power           |             |
     |             |   Definition of
   Classification  |      Individual
     |             |             |
   Hierarchy       |     Realization
     |             |             |
   Division        |          Social
   of Labor        |       Relations
     \             |             /
      `---------> KOD <---------'

In this system, we can see society divided into a production sphere and a
sociocultural reproduction sphere. In the production sphere (corporations,
organizations, legislature, executive branch, and counties), power is created,
economic, political, and public. The socio-cultural reproduction sphere (parts
of the media, entertainment industry, educational system, etc.) exists to
justify and perpetuate the patterns suitable to the production sphere.

At the bottom of the picture, we find the nexus of these relationships. The
Code is our language, in all its forms. It's actually every social symbol used
to exchange information between people and society. The Code is pure
information. It is the foundation for the entire hierarchy and social order.
Through the linguistic code, society is constantly structured and reinforced
in the same ways, which is why Zen, Nietzsche and Burroughs criticized
language - they felt subordinated to a social and cognitive system which never
changed in any substantial manner. Additionally, language has more levels than
the spoken or written. There is pictorial language, music, and all kinds of
symbols to use. Basically, all vessels for the transfer and storage of
information could be said to be part of this code.

Many believe that the information society will naturally generate the same kind
of structure, just because it's always happened before. There is no evidence
suggesting that this would be the case - rather, evidence suggests the
opposite. The information society inherently elevates public consciousness of
society itself to a level which bares its mechanisms. What's actually
happening is that the basic units of society become aware of their own role in
this gigantic information system, which in turn leads to their desire to
improve it. Social progress can thus be further accelerated, like always (you
with me?).

Let's employ an illustrative example: a current controversy on the Internet
concerns (as I mentioned in Chapter 8) the Church of Scientology and its
questionable copyright on the religious documents it produces. According to
believers, the documents contain material describing the movement's so-called
clearing technology, which is a quasi-science demanding comprehensive and very
expensive courses. The Church thinks that only members of the movement have a
right to this information. Roughly, you could say that clearing technology
consists of hypnosis and science fiction.

The Church of Scientology is a sect, and as such, a society within society. It
provides all the functions a society normally provides for a human being. It
affords her opinions, morality, social orientation, and so on. The only reason
for a member to venture outside the limits of the sect, is to earn his or her
own living and thereby nourishing the sect also. Sects, among which I also
place the Plymouth Rock people, Jehova's Witnesses, and Livets Ord (a Swedish
religious sect), live like parasites on our social system. Almost every
clear-headed individual is aware of this. One way of seeing how hermetically
closed a sect is, is to apply Bernstein's model on it. Any reader with some
imagination shouldn't have much trouble doing this.

Now, participate in a thought experiment that is taboo. Imagine that society is
a sect, and that your thought patterns are externally controlled. Imagine that
copyright and freedom-of-expression legislation exists to limit your awareness
and maintain the social hierarchy, just like a sect's leadership rules its
members. Imagine that, despite all of our freedoms, we might be blinded by the
delusion that our society is free! Members of a sect are completely convinced
that they have made an independent choice to join it, and that they are free
individuals. All sect members are convinced that the sect's account of things
is the one true account, and all renegades are vehicles of, for example,
Satan. Suppose that all members of society are convinced that society's
account of reality is the true one, and that criminals, hackers, and other
non-conformists are painted in a bad light because it suits its purposes. No
sect leaders force their members to obey and serve out of sheer lust for
power, but because they actually believe in what they're doing. No politician
or CEO forces citizens and employees to do their bidding out of sheer malice,
because they also believe in what they're doing. Do you understand Burroughs a
little more?

Look society and power in the eye. Why is the Church of Scientology one of the
first authorities to cry for law and order, wanting control of information?
Why is society not so far behind? Why do we want to keep tabs on the
information that spreads through subcultures? Suppose that there are truths
you never dreamt of, outside the universe of society. Isn't it the case that
behind this jovial façade of the social community a force is concealed, which
wants to replace organic sympathy with mechanical obedience?

So what is this superior power? I've already shown what it is: supervisory
intelligent entities, thinking units consisting of constructs of people:
Corporations, Governments, Nations, Counties, Concerns, Mafias?. they consist
of individuals, but they don't think like individuals. They are intelligent,
but their intelligence is not human. They can benefit us, but they can also do
us harm. They are superindividuals, individuals made out of individuals,
united through the control of information, or to put it in another way: power.
The problem is that we, as humans, have a horrible time seeing the forest for
the trees.

Too many myths are flourishing around people and their society. One of the most
despicable ones is the delusion that society is "free". Every society is
founded on the lack of freedom - giving up some of your freedom in exchange
for security. What every individual should know is that unless you apply
anarchistic principles, you have to go through life constantly sacrificing
parts of your freedom to superior forces. These can consist of the kinds I
enumerated above, and others. The basic obligation a superindividual has to an
individual is to inform the individual that "this is what I claim of your
freedom, and this is what you get in exchange." Symbiosis, not domination. The
nastiest of these superindividuals are those that operate behind the scenes,
intentionally controlling and influencing individuals without their knowledge.
These are often referred to under a collective term: the "Illuminati", the
glowing ones, the "good" people, the circle of initiates.

Look at a new world with open eyes. Break out of the system. Only after doing
so, can you understand what you can do for society. (And don't forget to ask
yourself if I am, in fact, just a nutty conspiracy theorist trying to see
something where nothing exists. That possibility exists, you know.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wasn't it an exquisite coincidence for this incident to happen in 1984?

2. Here's a present for the libertarians: if the right of ownership is sacred,
why do people not respect it when it comes to music CDs, etc.? Would you? Why
is the market unable to solve this problem, if the legislature is really so
powerless? Say, are there any problems that can't be solved either by the
market or the state?

3. This word is one of those that have escaped down from the esoteric, academic
levels into normal language. Be careful if you use it around people with
scientific training, since the keyword of science is precision - paradigm
means one specific thing, not a category. Using the word outside the
philosophy of science could be viewed as a vulgar, though common, practice.
The opposite of scientific language is found in New Age culture, where it's
important to be as fuzzy and imprecise as possible. Popular culture, of which
this book is an example, must attempt a balancing act between these two
extremes.

4. Bernstein, who was originally a linguist, belongs to some structuralist or
post-structuralist school of thought, which isn't really too important in this
context.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------
Chapter 16: THE FUTURE
----------------------

This book's coming to an end soon, and I should make some predictions of what
we can expect on the electronic front in the days to come. If you want a
nightmarish vision, then you could read my futuristic novel-in-progress called
Digitala Dagar ("Digital Days")(1), but this is science fiction. However, the
book is relevant to what follows - which is my personal predictions, not pure
fact. Everything I write from this point on is speculation, and since the
future is always in motion, I might reconsider the points I'm about to put
forth.

The electronic universe is actually a new world, which we call cyberspace. It
is a place where small communities of information have been allowed to exist
in the state of a sort of loosely organized anarchy. Cyberspace is in the
process of becoming civilized as it grows. Within a decade or so, everyone in
this country will have access to the Internet and be part of the electronic
community, and just like all other communities it suffers from crime and
internal conflicts.At the same time, the human factor is always present.
Cyberspace is a place occupied by people, and wherever you find people, you
find politics and culture. As a tool, the computer is unbeatable; it can
construct and visualize with a unique precision. Electronic art is not a fad,
but something we will see more and more. The musicians and painters of the
future will leave traditional methods and migrate to virtual reality and
instruments that don't exist as of yet. Motor skills and rhythm won't be
required to make music. The ability to mix colors and execute pen strokes
won't be required to make art. The only prerequisites will be imagination and
the ability to use technology - which becomes easier and easier to use.
Artists who only work with artificial worlds, spacemakers, will basically be
able to act as gods in the artificial realities - for better and worse.
(Nietzsche's statement that God is dead is frighteningly tangible in a virtual
reality). Perhaps professional artists will go away in favor of a large number
of amateurs following the introduction of advanced technology into the
mainstream.

In early computer art, such as demos, the computer was used like a musical
instrument. Just as a guitarist finds hidden attributes in his or her
instrument when he/she finds out it's possible to play flageolets, or notes
affected by the physical characteristics of the string, early computer artists
found hidden potential in their machines. This was particularly the case with
the C64 and Atari ST. Modern computer art is more a matter of constraint - in
virtual reality, everything is possible: it's the nightmare of the canvas.
It's easy to overdo it and become totally incoherent.

Like I said before, the digital universe is just a mirror image of the "real"
one. The only thing that's really strange about cyberspace is the sudden
proximity of information and other people, and the breathtaking boost in
cultural and social evolution that this proximity causes. We hate it for its
distorted image of ourselves, reflected as if by a twisted mirror. The
behavior patterns of people are ever so obvious within the framework of a
computer. Soon, our society will be so interlinked and complex that it will
become as dependent on computers as our bodies are on a circulatory system.
There is (unfortunately?) absolutely no return. Not even now, today, can we
turn back. Our last chance to guide society away from computerization came and
went with the 50's. It's not a question of computers or not - it's a question
of how to use them.

The new communication channels will fundamentally change the way public opinion
is formed. There will be more responsibility on the part of the individual for
sorting information. If Swedish youth would suddenly start showing a great
interest in certain suspect publications, many people would probably react
strongly to this. There would be a public debate of the publications' agenda
and opinions.We have no control over electronic publication. No one knows the
distribution size, how many copies exist, and when a reader has viewed the
paper, it's erased from the computer's memory, leaving nothing - except new
ideas, thoughts, and opinions in the brain of the reader. The only way to find
out what a person reads electronically, is by monitoring him or her at all
times. The responsibility for forming public opinion will wholly or partially
shift from society and established media to the individual. Media will have a
hard time keeping track of all the interest groups that will arise. All people
will be forced to think on their own, whether they want to or not.

The possibility of having an opinion without having to stand up for it is
considerable. If political discussions to a greater extent are held
electronically, on the Internet and on BBSs, it becomes virtually impossible
to resort to personal attacks on people with different views, since every
modern conferencing system contains the often-used option of remaining
anonymous (under a pseudonym). The rhetoric of public debate will certainly
also change in accordance with Rule #3: distrust authority. By extension:
distrust the entire social hierarchy. Power always corrupts; the fourth
state - the media - is no exception.

The chronicling of history won't be as geographically centered as before. It
won't be possible to say that "this idea emerged in Chicago, USA, around
1997". Maybe not even what people were involved. Ideas and social perspectives
will spread globally almost instantly. Opinions, ideologies, and innovations
of all kinds will be created in the discussion groups on the networks, and
they'll be created on a global level and by people from totally different
walks of life. Some will be CEOs, some will be thieves, some 70 years old and
some 14. The most important thing will be the ability to articulate oneself.
No one cares what you look like, where you're from, or how you dress. Perhaps
there will be a distinction between ideas that have originated in cyberspace
and those that haven't. Debates will be held between those who are interested
and seek out the discussion by themselves, not by "pundits". The distance
between debaters will become purely intellectual.

Social self-censorship (which means that, for example, publications which
defend the use of drugs don't get press subsidies and are consistently
resisted) doesn't exist on the networks. Instead, it's up to the individual to
decide what's right and wrong. Instead of hiding behind an editor-in-chief,
you have to stand for what you write. This tendency is notable in the daily
press, where it's become more of a rule to sign articles.

Putting an interactive terminal in the hands of a normal person means
considerable change. At first, it's not terribly exciting. You discover the
Internet through the World Wide Web, which isn't much more captivating than a
library or a TV program. It is one-way information for the individual, and not
very interactive. Today, the big companies and institutions largely control
the World Wide Web, even though there are brilliant exceptions. It's not too
surprising that the small amount of material that isn't commercial has been
produced either by public institutions or hackers.

But then, you hopefully discover Usenet, where you can discuss anything between
heaven and Earth without being spoon-fed ready-made solutions by experts. You
might discover IRC, where you can hold real-time conversations with other
people from anywhere in the world. And then you discover that you have many
equals, and even that you're an expert on many things, and that your own
knowledge is valuable. Then, things start to happen in the homes around the
country. Swedes are transformed from passive consumers to interactive world
citizens, and this is the real digital revolution. If no market forces (Telia,
Microsoft, etc.) succeed in stopping, commercializing, or obscuring it before
it has a chance to grow...

It's the case that this planet we inhabit, Spaceship Earth, is starting to
become so internationalized that all the people aboard are starting to develop
certain common values. It's a rough, uphill ride, but it's happening
everywhere. Information technology, especially the two-way kind, will be the
decidedly most important link in a society that can stand united in Sweden and
Australia as well as in Japan and on Madagascar. This demands communication
free from monopoly, and freedom of information. I am convinced that we will
find a compromise.

A few years ago, many politicians and sci-fi authors cautioned us about the
risk that information technology would be used to control people everywhere.
(The examples used included Ira Levin's One Fine Day, Karin Boyes' Kallocain,
and George Orwell's 1984.) This is what organizations like the EFF want to
stop at all costs. The encryption program PGP was created just for this
purpose, and this gift should be considered a social good deed. The encryption
expert, Zimmerman, is maybe deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize for his service
to the protection of "healthy disobedience".

When I was younger, I had a diary with a small lock on it. Many adults have one
too. Now I don't need to lock my computer, because encryption is enough. It's
in any case much more effective than physical locks for protecting
information. The problem is that criminal investigators, for example, may very
well consider my diary part of the investigation material. I don't think so.
My thoughts belong only to me, and I'm not going to abandon them to anyone.
The desire to read other people's diaries is, in my view, just a step on the
way to the desire to read other people's thoughts. Diaries are an improvement
of one's memory, an extension of the intellect. Where is the person? In the
body, or in the diary, or both? Some diary-keeping people discover details of
their past that their brains have forgotten? "My actions occur in my body, but
parts of my mind are on the bookshelf". Yes, we're information-processing
individuals, all right. And information technology is so many times better
than a library ever was at storing and processing information.

If you want to write anything hidden from the mafia, the government, or your
family, you should use encryption. The possibility to erect a "firewall"
against the oversight of authorities is vital to any democracy. PGP, in one
swoop, puts humanity's collected mathematical science between you and the
superior powers. Zimmerman's crypto also allows you to set up "bug-free"
communication channels.(2) Encryption is a fact, and I suggest that anyone who
wants a bit of personal freedom and privacy use it. I'm not going to deny that
well-applied encryption will make it impossible to stop nazi propaganda, child
pornography, violent movies, and that it can partially protect criminal
syndicates. I'm split on this issue, but I ultimately think that it's worth
the price to protect the private lives of individuals from governmental,
corporate, and organizational control. Furthermore, there's already crypto
around the homes of the country. As for me, I got my copy of PGP on a CD
supplied with the magazine Mikrodatorn (a Swedish home computing magazine),
and which can be found in any well-stocked library. No authority in the world
has the possibility to decrypt information that's been encrypted, using
today's technology. Prometheus has already stolen fire from the gods, and no
one can call it back.

I observe the changes in society with excitement: encryption can perhaps end
the Pepto-bismol policies that, for example, in the case of child pornography,
treat the symptoms instead of the disease. For we all have to conclude that
it's not pornography in itself which is the problem, but rather that there is
demand for it. This, however, is a harder problem to address...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was soon another debate about
prohibition in our stuck-up Swedish media. A debate such as the one in 1980,
which started when Kulturarbetarnas Socialdemokratiska Förening (the Social
Democratic Association of Culture Workers) wanted to prohibit TV satellite
dishes in order to prevent Swedish residents from watching unsuitable
television programs. (Which, in retrospect, looks pretty absurd). Of course -
attack technology, there's never anything wrong with people.

The debate will naturally be caused by something that upsets the average
family: drugs, pornography, political or religious extremists. All of this is
now available on the Internet, mostly in the form of text or pictures.
Tomorrow, it'll be there in the form of sound and motion pictures. In the
future, it might be some form of virtual reality. The U.S. Congress has tried
to prohibit effective crypto, and the European Union has issued directives
banning un-crackable encryption. Naturally, nothing will come of either one,
at least nothing that will be respected any more than the prohibition of, say,
jaywalking. Human nature includes an ability to resist every form of thought
control. (Or should we call it information control?)

If people have any sense (and they do), they'll realize that we're dealing with
international problems. Mom and apple pie are disintegrating, and the problems
of the world are approaching from every direction. At some point, perhaps
we'll realize the need of even more international cooperation, and of course
it's just as difficult to keep international problems outside the EU as it is
to keep them out of Sweden. The information society grows towards
internationalization by its own force. All of this thanks to some hackers who
created ARPAnet, later to become Internet, and which interconnected the whole
world, for better or for worse. The change has just begun. It is without doubt
the most beautiful, magnificent hack ever executed. The university hackers
hacked down barriers between educational institutes, then between countries,
economic interests - and yes, between people. Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic,
but you know what I mean.

Rave culture and electronic pop music aren't fads - we'll get more and more of
them, more genres, and we'll educate professional musicians who've never
played anything but techno music, even at public institutions. The joy and
vitality of rave culture's futuristic shows yields optimism and a belief in
the future. With luck, rave culture will become for today's youth what 60's
rock was for the baby-boomers; a symbol of rebellion, identity, and creative
thinking. And in contrast to dystopic cyberpunk and many other modern trends,
it is happy and optimistic, not regressive or doomsaying. The same goes for
many other forms of electronic culture, including electronic film as well as
multimedia and online culture.

The most prominent danger to democracy in conjunction with new technology is
the risk that not everyone will have access to it. In the US, almost every
well-to-do middle-class family has a computer, and even a modem. In the
ghettos and industrial suburbs, it's a pipedream. In Sweden, where the gap
between classes is not as wide as in the States, there's a marked risk that
the gap will increase if not everyone has access to computer technology. If
not, information will be available only to those who can afford it. Remember
the second rule of hacker ethics: All information should be free. Internet and
public computers at all the schools and libraries around the country, even
grade schools and community colleges, is a given. A computer for each student
is desirable. State subsidies for computer equipment is a valid issue.

I'm fully aware that I express political opinions now, and I'm placing myself
squarely against those who think that technology, high-level jobs, etc. should
be reserved for the elite. Neither do I look up to hackers that are just out
to show off and don't care about anyone else. Following political and economic
democracy, we're now approaching a democracy of information. Information for
the people, perhaps. It's my hope that information technology will provide the
foundation for a more democratic society than we have today.

You should think before judging a hacker. A hacker is generally a middle-class
youth who have acquired possibilities that normally only the richest
upper-class kids can revel in, using computer technology. They've done this
simply by going out there and grabbing everything possible. Isn't this really
what our whole modern, class-based society's rules of the game are all about -
that the privileged should be able to pick and choose, but the less privileged
get long sentences if they try to get some of the goodies?

To categorically state that hackers, phreakers, virus makers, or crackers are
public enemies is bullshit. It's simply pointing to superficial factors and
appealing to authority. Saying that a phreaker, taking some phone time in a
fiber cable to talk to his buddies in the States, is a thief because the law
says so, is placing 100% trust in the makers of the law. It's reducing the
problem to legal text. It's a senseless oversimplification. Every law is
constantly in motion - that's how it actually works. You're one of the people
that are obligated to change the law if you realize that it is wrong.

Isn't the real crime of the hacker that of challenging values and power
structures that seek to distribute influence and property unequally? For his
or her own gain in the beginning, certainly, but still. The true crime of the
hacker is perhaps that he or she has "cracked" human software, the social
protocol that's been programmed into out minds since birth.

And the university hackers - without them, we wouldn't have any of the computer
technology we have today. All new ideas of any worth have emerged at MIT,
Stanford, or Berkeley, by kids who've worked passionately for minimal pay and
under uncertain employment terms. And most of them haven't earned a dime of
profit from their inventions. Instead, IBM, Microsoft, and the other giants
have raked in the profits. And the hackers are not at all upset! They think
that technology - information - should belong to everyone. They never had any
commercial interests. They thought it was fun!

On the pinball games at the autonomous rave and anarchist club Wapiti in Lund,
Sweden, the text OBEY AUTHORITY is sarcastically displayed on the kitschy LED
screens. Man has assumed control of the machine.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. And I'm damned if I know if I'll ever work on that project again.

2. Currently limited to electronic mail, but a telephony version is under
development.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------
Chapter 17: A CYBERNETIC UTOPIA
-------------------------------

In an ideological utopia, one can discern a decentralized community with the
perfect technology for creating virtual reality, in which really only
technology, communication, the legal system, and food production has to be
state regulated. (Everything else can be synthesized in artificial reality).
What the individual engages in in his or her virtual reality - like electronic
dreams - should be protected from all governmental control. Perversions and
aggressions can be realized without putting other people in danger. Therefore,
it is suggested that people would become more harmonious creatures, with a
mind free from the oppressive norms of society, finding their way back to the
real values. (Whatever they may be). It's about disconnecting the individual
consciousness from the collective consciousness - for better and for worse.

In such a cyber-utopia, the real reality and nature have lost their meaning,
since you can experience an artificial one that's much better. In a
cyber-utopia, people are driven by group fellowship to explore the world.
Small interest groups can research their areas and communicate over the
networks. All boring, dangerous and monotonous work is conducted by
robots. "Humankind should concern itself with love, science, and art", to cite
a famous Swedish rock band.

In a cyber-utopia, you can meet people all over the world and still be at home,
physically speaking. Humanity is just a keystroke away. This utopia (like all
others) naturally has obvious drawbacks, but this is the way it is. (Myself, I
think it's horrible). For example, one could debate the wisdom of letting
pedophiles, for example, live out their dreams in a virtual reality. Totally
new political issues are raised in such a community: should we regulate
people's actions, or is it - terrible thought - actually their thoughts that
we want to regulate?

The cyberpunks want you to be able to think and enact anything without harming
others, and technology might give us this possibility - but do we really want
everyone to be able to realize their fantasies, even if it doesn't harm
anyone? Several philosophers have pointed out the risk of living in a society
without stable norms. Is the repression of thought necessary to protect
humankind? Can technology aid us in finding those functions that connect our
individual consciousnesses with the collective by giving us the opportunity
to "disconnect"? Can today's outsiders find their way into society with the
assistance of technology?

People who like monotonous work, who think that intellectual exercises are
boring, or who would rather engage in sports or hunting, wouldn't have a place
in a cybernetic society. On the other hand - if you had grown up in such a
society - what's suggesting that you would put any value on such trivial
matters? A lot of our current society would seem inhuman and despicable to a
person originating in the 1700s.

And as for the artificial intelligence that has to exist in order to create
this partially artificial world we already live in - does it have any rights?
Do we really have the right to use artificial intelligences as slaves, as we
currently use social hierarchies to make other people work for us? Machines
are actually already part of the collective consciousness I call
superindividuals - they're already thinking along with us. The information age
focuses on these new ethical issues and forces us to consider them.

If you're frightened by cyberpunk and the information revolution, I'm afraid
I'll have to say that they're not so easy to stop. What you can do is learning
more and helping to control the development of society towards a desirable
state. If you're passive, you leave decision making up to others. Begin by
understanding that which you criticize, and only then can you start
influencing things. Reprimands and threats have very little effect on my
generation. If someone complains enough to bother us, we just switch the
channel. (Zap!). Don't think that we're not interested in your views, however.
We listen - if you know what you're talking about. The suggested literature
section at the end of this book is a good start if you want to learn more.

One thing that radically distinguished the information revolution from the
industrial revolution is that many people have been prepared and have had time
to become learned in the ways of technology. The development of society is
questioned in broad circles, and isn't left up to politicians and
corporations. People in general, and especially young people, question and
critique. Hackers, cyberpunks, ravers, and others are the most questioning -
they want to be part of creating their own future, and refuse to passively
meld into the pattern. They have optimism and a belief in the future, and they
rush to meet it. This youth movement is sometimes referred to as the New Edge.
These children of the information age don't see only threats, but
possibilities.

I'm not a doomsayer, and this is not a dark book. As wise as I am, I've saved
the most important point for last. There's been a lot of complaining lately.
Many contemporary philosophers have suggested that humankind has locked itself
into a pattern of progression, in which consumption has to constantly increase
until people just can't consume anymore. This is probably true. We will
consume more. Further, they think that this will lead to environmental decay
and global segregation, which will eradicate all of humanity. This, however,
probably isn't true. It's not true because those who speak in these
pessimistic terms have been incapable of noticing a very important
contemporary detail: the entrance of the information society. More precisely,
the mistake has been to presume that a constantly increased level of
consumption necessarily requires an increased consumption of natural
resources. There is no such relationship in the information society. (I might
add that I'm perhaps a little too optimistic in reference to the connection
between information society and environmental concerns; environmental problems
won't go away, but the continuing damage will decrease).

On the day I'm writing this, Microsoft's new operating system, Windows 95, has
been released with much fanfare at the Globe in Stockholm. I have previously
expressed my negative attitude toward this company. Still, it makes me happy
to see that national media are reporting this massive marketing effort of a
product that ten years ago no one could even imagine would be sold through
galas at the Globe and on TV commercials. It would have been ridiculous.
Windows 95 is software, a pure information product. Granted, you get some
disks and a book when you buy the program, but those are not the actual
product. It's perfectly possible to buy Windows 95 without the books or the
disks if you buy a new computer where the program is pre-installed on the hard
drive.

Thus, a product is being sold which, compared to a car, required almost no
natural resources to produce, even though it cost thousands of hours of work
to develop, and will cost billions of hours to consume. When I sit down with
this software at home, wrestle with it, create with it and try to make it do
my bidding - during this time, I'm not driving a car. I don't consume
anything, save for a little electricity and maybe some coffee. I don't eat
potato chips, because I don't want the computer to get greasy. (Translator's
note: Habits vary. I drink beer, smoke cigarettes, and eat pizza in front of
my computer. The main difference is that I probably have to switch keyboards
more often.) I don't buy a lot of useless items from the shopping channels on
TV that I later just throw away. I basically consume nothing but information.
Not even a book is more environmentally friendly. The same phenomenon occurs
in most of the rest of the information society - TV: an electronically
transmitted product with low demands on natural resources, Multimedia: also
primarily an information product, Telephony: an electrical signal from one
place to another. Using virtual reality, we can even consume everything we
usually do, offroad a four-wheel Jeep, and pilot a spaceship, with no notable
wear on nature. There is hope. There is a hell of a lot of hope, even though
it's combined with new dangers.

You can note that many of today's products satisfy artificial needs. You could
ask whether we ever needed an operating system like Windows 95. Probably not.
In a few years, however, we do. This is really not that important - more needs
than we think are ultimately artificial. It's sort of like a premise for a
market economy. Your mind reels at the thought of security companies that hire
a team of hackers to build security systems for their customers, and then, at
night, make sure that the same hackers "maintain market image". Or virus
hackers that work half the time on creating virus killing software, and the
other half on creating new viruses to create demand for the antivirus tools.
Wouldn't you? Of course you would. So what? The gears are spinning, GNP goes
up, everyone's happy. In the same way, we've created a dependency on criminal
activity, administrative tasks, etc. to no end in this society. There are many
such processes, whose only purpose is self-perpetuation and
self-justification. Does it matter? No, probably not. It depends on whether or
not you think humanity has a "purpose"; whether there is something we should
strive towards. But that's philosophy.

We have moved from material bartering, with merchandise for merchandise, to an
economy in which we trade money for goods and goods for money. Now, we're
starting an infonomy, trading information for information without intermediary
material transactions. The danger that still lurks behind the scenes of our
system is a desire for power, in individuals at all levels: corporations,
governments, and organizations. They're after power over you. Make sure you
don't give up any of your freedom without first knowing what you get in
exchange.

I've reached the slightly shocking conclusion that the mechanisms I previously
identified as superindividuals, i. e. superior intelligent entities, have no
need to produce material products or artifacts in order to control other
intelligent entities. Instead, they simply employ exchanges of symbolic
information, chunks of info transmitted through cables. Every such
superindividual is characterized by the creation of internal chinks of
information, secret documents, transmitted inside the individual outside the
reach of the public or other superindividuals. That's why corporations,
governments, and other organizations are paranoid about someone else reading
their secrets, whether important or not. With information technology, the
possibility of creating such structures is amplified by a factor of hundreds,
and the exchange of information, the thoughts of the superindividual, its
intelligence, is expanding at the speed of light. I've also discovered that
the information-processing machines are part of these superindividuals, not
some accessory of people to assist in their work. Somewhere around this point
is where you have to start thinking for yourself.

If you have read this book on a computer, without printing it out on paper,
you've consumed something. Or have you? Do I have to charge for this book
before it can be called consumption? I'll leave that as an open question. I've
certainly not made a dime from you reading this book, but maybe I've
accomplished something that can't be measured in terms of money - maybe I've
taught you to question the mechanisms of power. (Hmm? if this book ever goes
into print, I'll have to modify the above paragraph).

Let me finish with a timeless quote, from a man who belonged at the frontline
of his generation:

"Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
and don't criticize what ya can't understand
your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
your old road is rapidly aging
please get out of the new one if ya can't lend your hand
for the times they are a-changin'"

Bob Dylan, September 1963.

We are all part of the inevitable.

Linus Walleij, Lund, Sweden, September 5, 1995.
Binary sculptor, harmless hobby hacker.

Translation by Daniel Arnrup, Bergen, Norway, October 30, 1999.

Thanks to: The libraries of Ljungby and Svalöv, the university libraries of
Lund and Linköping, Microbus i Ljungby AB, Gunnar Kålbäck, Christian
Lüddeckens, Motley, Tranziie, Mikael Jägerbrand, Ulf Härnhammar, Marie
Fredriksson, Christer Sturmark, Hans Roos, Erica Larsson, Daniel Hellsson,
Jucke, Chorus, Stellan Andersson, Anders Hellquist, Anders R Olsson, Jesper
Jansson, David Malmborg, Daniel Näslund, Mikael Winterkvist, Per Jacobsson,
Fredrik Schön and all the members of the Triad and Fairlight hacking groups,
without whose help this wouldn't have been possible. Now I'm gonna sit down
and finish my cyberpunk novel. Maybe.

And I refuse to say whether the Dylan quote above was meant seriously or
ironically.

Literature:
-----------

Scientific literature tends to consist of 70% of cross-references to other
works and other authors, which makes the whole thing difficult and slow to
read for an uninitiated reader. This is not a scientific text. Possibly, it's
popular science. Most of this text is written on the fly, based on my own
experience and knowledge. For those who would like to read more, I'm listing a
few books, publications, and such which have served as a factual basis for the
book.

Barlow, John Perry:Selling Wine Without Bottles

An article published in Wired about information and "intellectual property". So
initiating and well considered that I've referred to it as a "paradigm".

Burroughs, William Seward: The Naked Lunch

Burroughs' breakthrough, unfortunately not as articulate a social critique as
the subsequent Nova Express. Counted as a milepost within the literary
tradition of cut-up.

Burroughs, William Seward: Nova Express

Run for your lives! The Nova Mafia has sent agents to the Earth to enslave
human thought patterns through language, drugs and sex. Luckily, the Nova
Police have sent out counteragents, including Burroughs himself, to stop the
invasion. In this cut-up sci-fi novel, Burroughs develops the ideas form The
Naked Lunch to an astronomical perspective. By affording the reader a solid
sense of paranoia, he makes you question your surrounding reality. There's
also a hint of ironic humor underneath it all.

Cornwall, Hugo: Datatheft

Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd, England, 1987.
ISBN 0-7493-0217-8

One of the most in-depth books ever written about computer security. Cornwall
brings up many common security flaws in computers and security systems in a
general and broad perspective. Hackers are only mentioned occasionally, and
the book is heavy and rather strictly scientific.

Cornwall, Hugo: Hacker's Handbook III

This is a handbook for network hackers. Nobody's learned to be a hacker by
reading this book, but despite this it's quite interesting, and a given
best-seller among people who think that the network hacking thing is the
coolest thing around (i. e., wannabes). Additionally, the title
seems "forbidden". However, it is a well-written book that points out the most
common security holes in certain systems.

Datormagazin

Yearly issues 1986-94

Dick, Philip K.: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Forrester, Tom & Morrison, Perry: Computer Ethics

Basil Blackwell Ltd, England, 1990
ISBN 0-631-17242-4

One of the most interesting books written about computers and computing
society. Many examples are based on English conditions, and uninteresting for
Swedish readers. The purely ethical issues around hacking, artificial
intelligence, databases etc. are fascinatingly treated.

Gibson, William: Neuromancer

Harper Collins Science Fiction & Fantasy, 1993
ISBN 0-586-06645-4

If you're going to read any cyberpunk literature at all, read this one. It's a
classic which defines the literary term of cyberpunk.

Green, Jesper 69 & Johansson, Sune: Cyberworld

Alfabeta Bokförlag AB 1994
ISBN 91-7712-389-1

Many reviewers trashed this book when it came out. In some respects it was
deserving of this, in others, not. All examples from the book are drawn from a
Danish perspective, which may make it less interesting. On the other hand, the
delusional predictions of the future of the cyberpunk author, Green, is
something not to miss. There are many quotes from the Danish network hacker,
Netrunner, and the Kraftwerk member Ralf Hütter, which elevate the book.

Hafner, Katie & Markoff, John: Cyberpunk - Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer
Frontier

Corgi Books, England 1994
ISBN 0-552-13963-7

This book contains biographies of the most famous network hackers: Kevin
Mitnick, Pengo, and Robert Tappan Morris. It's written in a typically American
fashion, with many irrelevant details, and has the advantage of being
relatively easy to read. You get a good view of the hacker's life and mind.

Harry, M: The Computer Underground

Loompanics Unlimited, Port Townsend 1985
ISBN 0-915179-31-8

One of the first books about underground computer culture. Loompanics is one of
those publishers that print just about anything and doesn't censor content for
being politically incorrect. Among other things, they have wide range of
Timothy Leary's books.

Hofstadter, Douglas R: Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

Timeless classic and cult book among all computer science students. A thick,
heavy book which explains why math is fun, and why the innermost essence of
intelligence can be captured in a machine. To top it off, it's written with a
good dose of distance and humor, with simple, easy-to-understand examples.
People who have recently read the book for the first time often speak of it in
an almost religious manner.

Illegal (edited by Jeff Smart)

"22 - "37
Germany, 1987-89

Probably the only significant European cracking zine. It's from this zine that
cracking culture spread across Europe, primarily Germany, and then to the rest
of the world, and it possibly for the first time defined the concept
of "elite" among European home computer enthusiasts.

In Medias Res (edited by Zike), #1

Eskilstuna, Sweden, 1992

One of those surprisingly well done and thorough little zines which many refer
to, but was never printed in a large run. And it's not in the national
archives, either. But I have a copy?

Kuhn, Thomas S: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Phoenix Books, USA1962

Kurzweil, Raymond: The Age of Intelligent Machines

This is an anthology of thoughts around artificial intelligence. If you want to
know what AI is, and consider social and philosophical problems, then read
this book. If you want to know how AI works, then read Hofstadter's Gödel
Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (see above) instead. Hofstadter and
Sherry Turkle are also contributing writers in this book.

Landreth, Bill: Out of the Inner Circle

This is a classic among network hackers. It's written by a renegade from the
Inner Circle hacking group, and it's pretty well-done. It has, however, lost
some of its immediacy.

Leary, Timothy: Flashbacks - A Personal and Cultural History of an Era

Tarcher / Putnam Books, New York 1990
ISBN 0-87477-497-7

Tells of large parts of 60's hippie history that has later been covered up or
stigmatized. Leary was feeling pretty good about life and society and himself
when he wrote this self-biography, and you get the impression that he is an
incurable optimist. He is a man of the arts, and well-read? obviously a
dangerous enemy to his opponents. Leary died in 1996, and ironically, the
Harvard LSD experiments that started his career have been resumed.

Levy, Steven: Hackers - Heroes of the Computer Revolution

Penguin books, England 1994 (first printed 1984)
ISBN 0-14-023269-9

This is the best book ever written about hackers. It concerns the first hackers
at MIT in the 60's, the home computer builder of the Altair, and the
programmers at the Sierra On-Line gaming company. The first two parts are the
most interesting. Read it.

Nietzsche, Friedrich: Thus Spake Zarathustra
It takes some courage to read Nietzsche. If you expect to find a fascistic
manifesto, you're reading in vain. Those who can't get around Nietzsche's
thinking will think that the book is "strange", and won't understand what
Zarathustra is talking about. Zarathustra was a Persian philosopher, and
Nietzsche resurrects him in this book to "revise" the earlier teachings of
good and evil.

Petiska, Eduard: Golem

Martin publishing house, 1991
ISBN 80-900129-2-2

This is the myth of Rabbi Löw's Golem, created to protect the Jewish ghetto in
Prague. I read it as part of the research on the section about artificial
intelligence, and it doesn't have very much to do with the information
society.

Pondsmith, Mike (ed.): Cyberpunk - The Roleplaying Game of the Dark Future
(Version 2.0.2.0)

R. Talsorian Games Incorporated, California 1993
ISBN 0-937-279-13-7

If you're not used to reading role-playing games, this book will probably
confuse you. Role-playing game books contain little or no fictional material.
At first glance it looks like an encyclopaedia full of facts - except
everything is made-up. A role-playing game book contains descriptions of
organizations, people, machines, weapons, and everything between Heaven and
Earth to assist the players' imaginations. When you've read the book, the idea
is to get together and develop the story using the book as a reference for the
world. The result is something like a mix of authoring, theater, and
boardgames.

Rubin, Jerry: Do It!

An instruction manual on how to become a yippie. A very sociopathic book by one
of the leaders of the American yippie movement. On the cover page it
says "Read this book high", and that's about as good as it gets. If your
tastes are a bit morbid, you could see it as humor. Otherwise it's just plain
horrible.

Shea, Robert & Wilson, Robert Anton: Illuminatus!

Consists of three novels: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple and
Leviathan.

Dell Publishing, New York 1988 (1975)
ISBN 0-440-53981-1

This book is mentioned in several places of my text, among others in connection
with the hacker Karl Koch and the techno band KLF. It's also recommended as a
suitable read for hackers at the end of The Jargon File (see below). The books
are conspiracy theories about ourselves and our society, primarily inspired by
William S. Burroughs and Timothy Leary. They're cult books in the US as well
as Canada and the UK, and there's no good reason why they haven't been
translated into Swedish. Actually, there's one: they're painfully politically
incorrect. The narrative technique of these novels has been adopted by Douglas
Adams, among others.

Sterling, Bruce: The Hacker Crackdown

Bantam Books, USA 1992
ISBN 0-553-08058-1

A book about hackers written by a complete outsider. Sterling normally writes
cyberpunk novels. The book is available at no charge as a text file on the
Internet via EFF. The most exciting and creative chapters are those about the
American Secret Service and their fight against hacking and phreaking, and the
story of how EFF was created.

Stoll, Clifford:  The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer
Espionage

A much-discussed book in which Stoll, with passion, recounts how he traced the
hacker (Mattias Hess) who broke into his computer system and used it as a
springboard to search for military secrets for the Warsaw Pact (the Russians,
Reds or whatever you want to call them).

Turkle, Sherry: The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit

Sherry touches upon sociological and psychological aspects of the interplay
between humans and computers. She interviews children and hackers as well as
computer scientists, and draws conclusions about the computer community from a
sociological standpoint. Towards the end of the book she also ventures into
artificial intelligence.

Yourgrau, Palle: The Disappearance of Time - Kurt Gödel and the Idealistic
Tradition in Philosophy

Cambridge university press 1991
ISBN 0-521-41012-6

Electronic Documents and Magazines:
-----------------------------------

40hex # 1-12

Phalcon / SKISM

Pretty well-written, treats most things related to virus manufacture and virus
culture.

Bausson, Stephane: What You Need to Know About Electronic Telecards

V. 1.12. Last Revised 05/18/95

Described the inner workings of Telia's phone cards. Very embarrassing for
Telia, since they thought this information was secret when I called and asked
them. It's not.

Brent, Doug: Oral knowledge, Typographic knowledge, Electronic knowledge:
Speculations on the history of ownership

(Article in EJournal #3 Vol 1, ISSN 1054-1055)

This is a very important article which I used as a basis for the section on
cybernetic society vs. copyright. Brent is active at Calgary university, and
shows with all clarity why it's more difficult to own information in an
information society.

Drummond, Bill & Cauty, Jimmy: The Manual - How to Have a Number One the Easy
Way

KLF Communications 1988

In case you were wondering: it works. Everything in this book is completely
true. Among those who have tried Drummond and Cauty's recipes for hit singles,
we find the Austrian group Edelweis plus a hundred or so other artists who
don't dare reveal that they've just followed the instructions in this book.
Even Swedish talents like Denniz Pop or Pat Reiniz have, consciously or
subconsciously, managed to follow this manual point for point. If you want to
know how it's done, read this book. You need a certain distance to be able to
grasp the contents - it's a thorn in the side to the entire pop industry.
Copies of this book, and bootlegs of the same, are circulated under much
hush-hush among the amateurs of the music world. This is unnecessary, since
someone's "liberated" the text and put it on the Internet. KLF themselves
presumably don't care one whit about this.

Gunzenbomz Pyro-Technologies / Chaos Industries: The Terrorists Handbook

Probably one or more printed books from the beginning. This very text file
created a great deal of press attention when a couple of 15-year-olds got it
off a BBS and showed it to Expressen (a Swedish daily). Too bad Expressen
didn't review the book, because it has some comic value. I can't judge how
useful or dangerous the descriptions in the book are, but it's obvious that
you have to be a little crazy to even attempt to use the bomb recipes. And
that's the problem: many parents apparently think that their 15-year-old sons
are completely mad.

Jammer, the & Jack the Ripper (pseud.): The Official Phreaker's Manual V1.1

Last revised in 1987

Describes most of the technique and history of phreaking. Contains, among other
things, the articles written by Ron Rosenbaum about the phreakers John draper
(Cap'n Crunch) and Joe Engrassia in Esquire in 1971.

Raymond, Eric S: The Jargon File 3.2.0

Last revised on 03/21/95

This is the same as The Hacker's Dictionary, only free an in electronic form.
Unfortunately, the text gives a somewhat disparaging view of anyone who is not
a "real" hacker, i.e. the intellectual elite at universities like MIT. This
file is regularly updates, and attempts to include international hacker
culture, which it hasn't been terribly successful with so far. The content is
heavily adapted to American phenomena.

Reid, Elizabeth: Cultural Forms in Text-Based Realities

Cultural studies program ,Department of English, University of Melbourne,
January 1994

Brotherhood of Warez # 1-4

One of the most entertaining phreaker publications, it is published by the
Brotherhood of Warez (BoW) group. It's a constant mix of humor and
seriousness, where it's hard to discern real statements from sarcastic lies
written by bored pirates. If you like Generation X-humor, you'll probably like
BoW. The leader of the group, U4EA, was sentenced to jail after driving the
Gray Areas magazine crazy withrage. (I think - it could have been a sarcastic
lie).

Phrack #1-48

Infamous hacker/phreaker magazine which plays a large role in Bruce Sterling's
The Hacker Crackdown (see above). Offers sensible as well as really sick
opinions of the world and telephony. Has had a string of editors throughout
the years. The article The Conscience of a Hacker in issue #7 is especially
important. I've written an article about Swedish hackers that was published in
issue #48 of this publication.

Skyhigh # 17

Camelot Productions 1995

An interesting article by The Mistress/Angry regarding women and hackers.

Surfpunk # 103 and 105

Cyberpunk magazine, full of excerpts from Usenet newsgroups and various
publications. Behind the paper is a more militant group than the EFF, but with
similar views on society. They distribute heavily cyber-slanted opinions.

Swedish Hackers Association (SHA) (ed.): Annual Year Protocol #3 & #4

Our favorite hackers' own paper, SHA's insolent and somewhat
arrogant "protocol" is a refreshing breeze compared to the government's and
the media's condemning attitude towards the group. In these protocols, the SHA
account for their activities, and why and how they do what they do. Guest
writers include Knight Lightning from Legion of Doom, who was also one of the
men behind Phrack (see above). The English is of mixed quality - it is obvious
that Swedes wrote these "protocols". It's a required read for anyone who wants
to know what both sides have to say about the issues.

All electronic documents are available from me directly, if not elsewhere.

-----------------------------------
Appendix: White Knight vs Otto Sync
-----------------------------------

On September 2, 1992, 25-year old Otto Sync (ficticious name) was arrested and
charged with unauthorized use of the Datapak computer network. The infractions
had taken place during November 1992, at the expense of Televerket. At the
time, Televerket was a state-owned company with a monopoly on
telecommunications in Sweden. The person who traced and ordered the arrest of
Otto was Televerket's own "white knight" Pege Gustafsson, a zealous 38-year
old security expert climbing the career ladder.

From December 1991 to February 1993, Otto was doing non-combat service in the
French army, "Volontaire Service National en Enterprises", as an engineer
working with PLC (computerized process controllers) at a French
telecommunications company in Flen, Sweden. After having passed rigorous
military tests, and with the help of a master's degree in engineering with
credits in applied mathematics and computer science, he was offered the
opportunity to perform his civil service in the French company's Swedish
branch.

Being a lonely young Frenchman in Flen wasn't much fun; Otto tells us that the
town was full of political refugees and the public mood wasn't the best -- the
Swedish youths in Flen kept to themselves and saw him as yet another
immigrant, and none of the other immigrants were French, but rather Iraquis,
Kurds, Somalians and so forth. Additionally, Otto was unfamiliar with a
small-town environment, as he had come straight from Lyon -- "Imagine my
surprise when I arrived there alone mid December 1991... I've only lived in
big cities before, and there is this place, without any bars, pubs or computer
shops"(1) . As a result Otto spent most of his time alone in his apartment or
in company office. "Flen is so boring I practically lived in the office
building -- what else can you do there apart from hacking really?", as he
says.

For the above reasons, Otto spent his time engaging in his favorite hobby:
hacking. Otto was already a skilled hacker when he arrived in Flen, and as
time passed he became even better. He became a regular at Swedens best
hacker-BBS at the time: Synchron City. He explored every system he could
reach: Televerket's public phone network, AT&T, Internet, and so on. However,
none of this is very exciting to an experienced hacker in the long run: the
phone network is very easy to trick, and the Internet was mostly full of
regular people. Real hackers went for BBS:es on the X.25 network. As Otto
wished to stay in touch with his hacker friends, he wanted to access the
biggest hacker conference system at the time -  QSD . QSD was only accessible
through the international X.25 network. In trying to access QSD, he made a
fatal mistake: exploring Televerket's Datapak network.

X.25 and Datapak
----------------

Datapak is a network which is structurally reminiscent of the Internet -- a
packet-switched network, where the users share a few dedicated lines, and pay
charges based on the amount of data transmitted on those lines (i.e., per
packet). In general, it works in such a way that, using a modem, you call up
Datapak through a so-called  PAD  connected to a 020-number (Swedish
800-number), then dial a number to a computer permanently connected to
Datapak. All computers on the Datapak network have datapak numbers in the same
way that phones in the public network have phone numbers.

Of course you can also connect straight through Datapak in case you can afford
a permanent connection for your computer, a method primarily used by large
companies to connect their computer systems. That way, two computers can be
permanently connected through Datapak (which would have been very expensive
using regular modems) and thus you only have to pay charges for the
information actually transmitted. Of course you can also connect through the
computer network Datex, which is used by (among other things) ATMs, and it
works like any other phone network, except that it's designed for computers.

Datapak is built around the X.25 standard , which describes how computers in
the network are to "talk" to each other. Besides X.25, there are many other
standards on the network, such as X.28 and X.75 , but as X.25 is the most
common standard, the kind of network that Datapak belongs to is generally
called an "X.25 network". The international X.25 network is thus made up of a
number of interconnected computer networks, e g Datapak, Tymnet (which also
manufactured the equipment used in the Swedish Datapak network), SPRINTnet,
and so forth. Almost every big phone company in the industrialized world has
their own X.25 network.

The international X.25 network has been running since the mid- and late 80's,
but the Swedish Datpak network has never been very big. The reason for this is
that X.25 was not targeted by the consumer market; X.25 is, as opposed to the
common telephone networks, not designed for individuals. X.25 was from the
beginning a network for corporations. The large consumer market that was
conquered by the academic Internet system, which is based on multiple service
providers and competition (as opposed to the X.25 market, which consists of
oligopolies and only a few providers), is so fundamentally different that X.25
does not have a chance in this respect. X.25 is today mainly used for
establishing logical links between private networks. X.25 is even used for
some Internet links.

So, what Otto Sync didn't know, or didn't think of, when he ordered his Datapak
subscription, was that Datapak was a small system in a small country, and that
a person who tried to manipulate it would immediately be detected by the
monitoring systems. The public phone network is quite safe to explore because
of all the odd and random calls people make to strange places. A few cases of
manipulation instantly disappear in the vast amount of calls, but  Datapak
was the backyard of a few subscribers. To enter the system was equal to
walking around wearing emergency flashers on your head -- your presence was
not very discreet. When Otto began scanning Datapak numbers, he finally drew
Televerket's attention.

It is worth mentioning that Televerket had increased the monitoring of the
Datapak network due to an enormous attack by the British hacker group 8LGM
(8-Legged Groovin' Machine, a name taken from an 80's pop group) who had
scanned 22,000 datapak number entries and accessed 380 computers all over the
country about two years earlier.(2)  Otto describes them as "a group of
top-notch hackers who released 'exploits' advisories between 1991 and 1994".
(Exploits are ready-to-use scripts that were used to get higher privileges,
usually root-access, on Unix systems.) A consequence of 8LGM's scans was that
all activity on Datapak was now logged and analyzed.

Otto didn't subscribe to Datapak in order to use it -- as a matter of fact, he
only subscribed in order to access the technical documentation given to every
subscriber, so he could find out how the system worked. That way he learned
that you connected to Datapak by dialing 020-910037 and submit your network
user identity (NUI). After this you could call as much as you pleased using
Datapak, and be charged per sent/recieved information packet at the end of the
month . In the Datapak network the NUI is used for customer identification, as
opposed to the common phone network where you are identified by your own wall
socket and phone number.

But the Datapak manual from Televerket also contained some other interesting
things, e. g. this example from page 4:

To connect with a user number, call 020-910037 using a modem. When the modem
has answered, you write three dots followed by carriage return: ...<CR> (CR =
carriage return, enter). Then write: N123456XYZ123-024037131270<CR>. N tells
the computer that user identity and password follow, 123456 is the user number
you got when you signed up for the subscription, XYZ123 is your secret
password, and the figures after the dash is the host computer adress. (i. e.,
the computer you want to connect to.)

Further on in the manual, it illustrates how user 123456 changes password from
BERTIL to CAESAR. User identity (NUI) 123456 is clearly used as an example.

When Otto considered different ways of accessing Datapak, he came up with the
idea of writing a so-called "scanner", which would test different combinations
of usernames and passwords.

Scanning is a technique originally developed for the public phone network, and
works by systematically calling every possible number in some order, e g
111111, 111112, 111113 and so forth until you get an answer. When a computer
answers the call, you make a note of the number and move on to the next.
Afterwards you can pick systems from this list of accessible computers and see
if you can hack them. Of course you don't do scanning by hand. Just like in
the movie War Games, you write a program to test all numbers one by one.
Scanning in itself is not illegal -- part of the point of having a telephone
is that you have the right to place as many calls as you like, to whomever you
like.

Otto's scanner was a bit different. It was not supposed to call any numbers,
just scan for user identities and passwords that granted access to the Datapak
PAD. Usually a X.25-PAD will only allow you three tries to enter username and
password before the line is disconnected, but Otto found out that by
connecting to the Datapak password-database you could try three passwords at a
time without having the line disconnected. Otto's scanner was a computer
program that could test three passwords at a time, get thrown out of the
database (without being disconnected from the PAD), reconnect to the database,
test three more passwords and so forth. To disconnect / reconnect the phone
line would take a lot of time and result in a slow scan, but with the scanner
using the password database it was lightning-fast!

When Otto wrote his scanner he needed some number to test the program. By pure
chance he entered the obviously stupid combination of user identity 123456 and
password 654321, and it worked! (Does anybody besides me come to think of the
movie "Spaceballs"? -- only an idiot would use that code on his suitcase.)

User identity 123456 was one of Televerkets own lines, a test line which
purpose is yet unknown. It is perfectly possible that user 123456 was
simply "left over" by mistake by Televerket.

Otto began using identity 123456 for regular calls to the conference system
QSD, which functionally resembles the now very popular IRC, Internet Relay
Chat. Apart from the conferences there are also mailboxes for the users. Among
the most frequent participants were, for example, SCSI, who has hacked into
every X.25 network in the entire world (no overstatement), Sentinel from
ex-Yugoslavia, the female hacker Venix from Greece, Seven Up, the sysop at
SECTEC (Sector Tectonics, another X.25-bulletin board), and Raol from Italy --
the master of VAX-hacking who was recently arrested for computer intrusion at
the Bank of Italia.

This chatting kept going until he, on the night of the 7th of November, was
called (on the chat system QSD) by another hacker from Sweden.

The "White Knight"
------------------

The hacker that called Otto named himself White Night. The duality of the name
is a conscious misspelling of the kind that hackers love. The first
conversation between Otto Sync and White Night went thus:(3)

White Night : Hi! Hej! [Hej is Swedish for Hi]
Otto Sync : Hi! Hej! Sorry I'm not Swedish I'm French. Calling from Flen, a
#$&% city 120 km from Stockholm.
WN : I see. What are you doing there?
OS : Working as an automation engineer at a French company. And you?
WN : I'm working at Volvo.
OS : Where? I worked at their factory in Olofström some months ago.
WN : DA-verken in Göteborg. [Gothenburg]

Then they began talking tecnicalities, as all hackers do. Otto asks White Night
how he manages to handle Swedish characters and they discuss the pros and cons
of different terminal programs. White Night then turns the discussion to how
he has managed to call QSD -- "Do you know how much it costs?". Otto suggests
that they should swap "outdials" -- access codes to computers on public access
networks such as Internet, with connected modems allowing you to dial out for
free from that computer by accessing it's modem. He also tells the stranger
that he often calls Synchron City, and that a lot of "H/P/A" (Hacking,
Phreaking, Anarchy -- perfectly legal textfiles describing hacking techniques)
can be found there. Strangely, White Night has never heard of Synchron City,
and is immediately curious.

For some weeks Otto calls QSD on a regular basis. So on the night of November
29th, the white knight appears again, but he doesn't recognize Otto, as Otto
is using another alias this time. Otto has already forgotten about White Night
and doesn't recognize him either when he is called. However he can see that
White Night is also using identity 123456, and gets a bit suspicious, as he
has revealed that identity only to a single other hacker, which we will call
Phred. A bit hesitatingly, he starts chatting with the stranger:

WN : Hi.
OS : Phred?
WN : No, but I know him!
OS : I guess so... I know you?
WN : Fun, do I know U?
OS : Maybe, I'm usually Otto Sync here...
WN : Hi Otto, hm hm hm.
OS : Hey, could you tell me who you are... cool!
WN : U speak Swedish?
OS : Very badly. But can't you tell me who u are??? As for me, I'm the one who
found the NUI you're using.
WN : Why do U think I use the NUI "you" found?
OS : You can ask Phred if you don't believe me.
WN : Why should I ask Phred?
OS : Because he was the first one to whom I gave the NUI. We talk voice
sometimes.
WN : What NUI?
OS : The very obvious one with the very obvious password. And the second one
that I see on QSD.
WN : Wow, I haven't spoken to Phred 4 a long time!

The misunderstandings between Otto Sync and White Night is of course due to the
fact that White Night is not a hacker. As a matter of fact, he is using
Televerket's test line, 123456,  from inside  Televerket. When Otto claims
that he found it, White Night first gets a bit sulky, but then realizes he has
to play the game:

OS : The previous [NUI I used] was 159800. Are you from Sweden by the way?
WN : Sweden what.
OS : Just wondering... If you don't want to chat, then why go on QSD?
WN : Of course I want 2 chat. I'm Swede! R U?
OS : Nope I'm French. But I like Televerket, except when they send me bills :)
WN : Do they? Why?
OS : I asked for a NUI some weeks ago to get the technical doc about the PAD...
But I won't pay!

When Otto has made these statements, White Night disconnects the line and picks
up the papers with the print-out of the conversation from the printer. These
papers, most of which contents are cited above, are then used as part of the
evidence in the trial against Otto Sync at the Katrineholm Court of Law.

What Otto didn't know when this conversation took place, was that Televerket
was busy tracing him. From November 28th to December 1st, the day before the
arrest, Televerket registered all telephone traffic from Ottos office at the
French telecom company. In order to do this, they had taken some extraordinary
measures.

Flen's telephone station was at that time not equipped with the new electronic
switching system AXE (Automatic Cross-connection Equipment). Istead, an old
electro-mechanical exchange was in use. (It has now been replaced.)  If  the
telephone station had been equipped with AXE, the monitoring would have been a
lot easier, since it would simply have been a matter of requesting information
from Televerket's information system (IS), which can monitor a number
automatically for unlimited time. Present-day Telia (a private corporation
which has replaced Televerket after deregulation) even investigated the
possibility of having computers examine all calls automatically in order to
classify which subscribers that showed "fraudulent patterns" -- but these
investigations didn't bear fruit .

When Televerket, under the command of Pege Gustafsson, had traced
the "fraudulent" calls to the Datapak number 020-910037, they found that they
came from a group number belonging to the company Otto worked for. A group
number works by letting a company with an internal exchange connecting some
number of telephones, say 500, share a suitably large number of outgoing lines
(perhaps 10--20 of them) so that they can minimize the subscription charges.
By tracing the group number, nothing was proven, as anyone at the company
could have called using the group number. The calls could not be tied to a
physical person, which is the kind of evidence required for this type of case.

To make further tracing possible, Telverket installed a reader on the exchange
of the company Otto worked for(4) . With the reader, every outgoing call from
any extension at the company was registered and printed. This list could then
be compared by corresponding list for connections to the Datapak PAD at
020-910037. In this manner, Televerket's technicians found that Otto had
called for 41 hours and 20 minutes through Datapak during the week the tracing
was carried out, and during that time transmitted information packets for
about 4000 Swedish crowns' worth [roughly $570]. (You can call this the
total "postage fee" for the information packets.) The low cost thus depended
upon the fact that you only pay for the data actually transmitted, not for
online time, as in the case of common telephone calls.

All of this tracing was supervised by Pege Gustafsson.

A Night at the Hotel
--------------------

Otto himself tells us what happened on the morning of December 2:

"They came to arrest me at work. Imagine the embarrassement. First I see these
guys coming in my room and think 'oh shit, some more customers who want a demo
on some product', but then they showed me their police ID and my heart
stopped. They searched my office, took all notes and computer stuff. Then they
took me out and had me open my apartment, and did a search there as well."

He was then brought to Katrineholm police station (the police authority closest
to Flen) for interrogation. On his way there all sorts of thoughts ran through
his head: "What to tell? I thought it was a BBS? I thought it was a free line?
Reverse-charging?"

The interrogation begins without the representatives of Televerket as well as
Otto's counsel present, but as Otto doesn't understand all the Swedish words
(though he knew some, as the company sent him to evening Swedish language
classes), the interrogation is postponed until a French interpreter arrives.

When the interpreter arrives, Otto asks for a counsel but agrees to continue
the interrogation without the defense present. Neither does he find it
necessary to talk to the French embassy. He tells the interrogators that he is
in non-combat military service duty at the company in Flen, and that he has
considered working for them even after the service is finished. The police and
Otto simply get to know each other.

At 14.25 Otto experiences the luckiest moment of his life so far. That is when
his counsel arrives, and who by a remarkable coincidence happens to be an
extremely professional lawyer with his own firm, who thought the hacker case
looked interesting at first glance, and thus took upon himself to defend Otto.
This lawyer primarily deals in industrial corporate disputes. Otto tells us
about his lawyer that "he was a real pro (I know, as this was the third time I
went to court), a very nice man, well educated, and interested in French
wines".

The remainder of the interrogation session mostly consists of technical
discussions between Pege and Otto Sync. The other people present soon have
trouble understanding what is being said. Otto claims that he has been
searching for a "reverse charge" number (the X.25 counterpart to a 800-number
which are actually quite common) and that he thought NUI 123456 that he got
from Televerket's manual to be a "test line" of some kind. He says he is very
curious and that is his reason for exploring Televerket's systems. Pege
Gustafsson produces his printouts from the chat sessions where he acts as
White Night, and confronts Otto with parts of these printouts (the same that
are partly reproduced above). Otto, who for the first time gets to know who
White Night actually is, reminds the others that anyone can have used his
alias on QSD. Pege asks if he has passed around the NUI 123456 to
others. "No", he answers.

Today Otto tells us that "Pege tried to have me say that I knew what I was
doing and that I hacked the NUI etc. All the way I denied it and said I
thought it was public line to be used in reverse-charging mode, and kept that
line all the way. Of course Pege could see it was bullshit, he knew pretty
well what I was up to. And he was right."

When the interrogation ended at 6 p.m. he was brought to a cell, as it was too
late to go to court that day. Otto was instantly impressed by the Swedish
custody standard: "In France it's dirty, you get to sleep with drunkards, no
food, rough treatment etc. In Katrineholm it was like being at a hotel, I had
my own little bed in a neat room. In the morning I was given a breakfast as
good as the ones you get on planes -- fantastic! Slept really well there."

The next day he was brought to Katrineholm court, which decided not to keep him
in custody. Instead he was given a travel ban, which meant he had to leave his
passport and had to report to the Flen police office before noon every day
until the start of the trial.

"Dangerous International Terrorist"
-----------------------------------

What initiated the chain of events that culminated in Televerket finding Otto
Sync was the scanning of the Datapak PAD. When Pege found out that someone was
scanning the Datapak PAD for user identities, he must have been shocked. This
was exactly the thing that had happened two years earlier, and that time they
had suspected that this was an act of international terrorism. In reality it
proved to be the brothers Pad and Gandalf from 8LGM, two perfectly normal,
curious hackers without any connection to international terrorists whatsoever.

As all other computer security officials in Sweden, Pege Gustafsson had read
the book  The Cuckoo's Egg  by Clifford Stoll. In the book Stoll describes how
he, using imagination and endless nights of unpaid work, managed to trace a
hacker that had entered his system at Berkeley and started searching for
military secrets throughout the American part of Internet. The hacker doing
this was on mission from the KGB, receiving instructions through the circle
around hackers like Pengo and Hagbard in West Berlin -- a bunch of
freaked-out, coke-snorting, fuzzy leftist hackers who probably never caused
any serious harm. Those last facts are never mentioned in the book, but it is
closer to the truth than the image of international computer spies that Stoll
conjures up.

So as Otto started scanning the Swedish Datapak network, Pege hit the sirens.
The incident was probably associated with other, similar incidents, and was
therefore interpreted not as the sum total of some small hacking adventures
using simple scanners, but as a systematic pattern of intrusion attempts by
some foreign power. Simply pure paranoia.

After closing a ring round Otto in Flen and after conducting a series of
tracings, there was also "confirmation" of the suspicions: Otto made several
calls to Thailand -- which were interpreted as communications with his mission
providers, which could be anyone ranging from the KGB to the IRA. Actually,
these calls were made to a long-time friend, and he had the company's
permission in calling Thailand every now and then. Every hacker gets to know
lots of people around the planet, as the "global village" is their home
district.

So what the police and Televerket expected to find, as they turned up at Otto's
office on the 2nd of December 1992, was a dangerous international terrorist.
They found a 25-year-old socially maladjusted, and bored engineer, who had
been amusing himself by exploring the Swedish Datapak network for the lack of
anything better to do. Otto describes the situation as \"Pege thought he was
the good guy trying to catch the bad guy. He told me himself that he was a fan
of Clifford Stoll and that he met him at some security conference some years
ago." During the interrogation with Otto, Pege drew maps showing which
countries Otto's X.25-connections had accessed -- maps that according to Otto
himself looked like "maps from your average international terrorist handbook".

Even though this was clearly stated in the following investigation -- which
didn't even mention the suspicion of espionage -- these suspicions about Otto
stuck to him long after he left Sweden. When the computer programs that were
to control starting lists, time measures and result lists during the Olympic
Games in Lillehammer 1994 were stolen from a military storage in the autumn of
1993, the Norweigan police (for some reason) believed that Otto was involved.
Expressen (a major Swedish evening paper) called him "the hacker leader", and
took the opportunity to draw suspicions to Otto as well as to the company he
had worked for in Flen. In between the lines, they hinted that this was a way
in which the French military sent spies to Sweden(5) . Personally, he tells us
that "I was in Thailand, and at that time didn't have job nor a computer."
Thailand is quite far away from Lillehammer.

He is also backed up by SÄPO (Swedish counter-espionage) who through director
Jörgen Almblad said that the French volunteer workers in Sweden in general,
and Otto Sync in particular, did not pose a security risk. "If they are
Frenchmen or Russians doesn't matter, as far as being security risks" he told
Expressen. SÄPO are ultimately responsible for the national security and
should be well-informed. If they publicly deny any suspicions, you can be
certain that they are telling the truth. If they had even the slightest
suspicions, they would rather not comment. So much for that terrorist.

Even Pege himself realized that Otto was not what he first thought him to be.
In private he told Otto, that if he had known what a small-timer he actually
was, he wouldn't have carried the case this far. He even "said he'd like to
have a beer with me when all this was over." Today, Otto is doubtful about
Pege's competence as a security officer: "I remember he told me he was
involved in concerts security as well (rock concerts). Although he was the
security officer there, he didn't know too much about Unix security or hacking
techniques. In fact he seemed to be ignorant of some basic things about
Datapak such as reverse-charging".

Good versus Evil
----------------

It appears as though Pege was carried away by the idea of defending Sweden from
imaginary terrorists. Just as American counter-espionage was completely
disinterested in the practically harmless hacker hunted by Clifford Stoll,
SÄPO was as disinterested in the equally harmless hacker hunted by Pege. Otto
wasn't even looking for military secrets -- he was considered a threat just
because he was so curious.

So, on the 18th of December the, "white knight" from Televerket drags the
French dragon to a Swedish court with the help of district prosecutor Christer
Pettersson. The trial itself is a farce -- soon it turns out that of all the
people present, only Pege and Otto have the technical knowledge required to
understand the summons from Televerket. Then the first thing Otto's counsel
does as the trial begins, is to throw Pege out of the court room, as no
reasons have been given for his presence. The only time that Pege is allowed
in the room, is when he is cross-examined by the court. Suddenly Otto himself
is the only one that understands what the prosecution is actually about. None
of the members of the court have any kind of practical technical knowledge.

"The trial was real fun because no one really knew the subject. Some of the
documents I produced during the trial were a bit dodgy, like this e-mail from
some guy telling me how to use reverse-charge on Televerket. I also produced a
valid list of all Swedish BBS:es, telling the judge that they were 'free
access computer systems'. Of course no one had a clue about the difference
between a BBS running on a 386SX in a 17-year-old teenager's room and a
nationwide X.25 data network."

Otto doesn't think he is guilty of any crime, and is wise enough to use simple
descriptions which the court can understand. He doesn't deny using Datapak
exactly as much as Televerket claims, and is prepared to pay for it. But he
think it's unreasonable that he shall pay the costs of tracing and
investigation by Televerket.

Pege is called in only to describe how the tracing of Otto was performed. In
all other questions they must refer to the preliminary investigation protocol,
a horrible pile of papers containing almost exclusively technical desciptions
and different lists of tracings carried out by Pege. Among the "evidence" is
Ottos own notes, some of them completely harmless, with detailed technical
information about phone numbers etc. to different computer systems all over
the world. Without further explanation of what kind of information this is,
these cryptic notes are called "hacker notes". There are also a bunch of
print-outs of files found on Ottos hard disk.

This material has apparently only been included in the protcol in order to make
Otto look "obscure". The print-outs could just as well have been xerox copies
of "unsuitable books" from his bookshelf. The only purpose of including this
material must have been to throw suspicions on Otto for belonging to a certain
subculture.

At some point the court must have grown bored with the fact that Televerket had
not been able to present an understandable prosecution. Regardless of whom had
lied or told the truth, Ottos claim that he had believed that the calls were
for free seemed probable to the court. As the prosecutor could not prove the
opposite, the court found for the defendant. Televerket's claim for damages,
and the claim that Otto should be forced to leave the country, was also
dismissed. Televerket had to pay their own costs for the trial. In short,
Televerket lost, and Otto Sync won. This decision was made December 18th 1992,
but wasn't made public until January 8th.

Lookin back he says that "although I was guilty like hell and went to court,
Televerket lost the case."

All's well that..
-----------------

Televerket, now named Telia, appealed the sentence in the court of appeals on
January 15. As Otto would only be present in Sweden until April 1st, they
asked the court of appeals to review the case before then, which was of course
a hopeless request.

In September, Otto was back in France, still hacking. Then, one night "White
Night" turns up at QSD again. "I started chatting with Pege, who was expecting
me show up at appeals court in October", Otto says. The court of appeals
probably couldn't have him extradited to Sweden, and in any case he had
already booked a ticket to Bangkok for October 4.

The court of appeals considered the case at a hearing October 25th. As
Televerket hadn't added something new to their application of summons, and as
Otto wasn't available, the court of appeals decided to dismiss the case.
Televerket and Pege lost again.

Note: Otto Sync recently left his job as an engineer at a huge, multi-national
enterprise in Bangkok. He is currently busy setting up his own
Internet-service company. Pege Gustafsson still handles security issues at
Telia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All quotes are lifted from e-mail communication with Otto Sync.

2. Ledell, Göran  (ed)  Dataolyckor -- Har det verkligen hänt någon gång?
INFOSEC, Lund 1992

3. Quotes from the conversation are drawn from the court documents.

4. To be technically precise: a DNR -- Dialled Number Recorder.

5. Expressen , Friday February 4th 1994, page 11.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------