Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Fights Hackers with Brainwashing
OKolzig37 writes "I won't even bother to comment on this one: Justice Department begins antihacking campaign. Oh brother. " Now kindergarten classes (the campaign is targeted to kids 12 and under, obviously an extreme threat to national security) will be visited by McGruff the Crime Dog, Smokey the Bear, and Mitnick, the Anti-Hacking Gerbil. Maybe someone should tell the DOJ that the reason for our current national prosperity is a generation of kids that grew up...hacking. The original press release is online also.
in the article below this, NSA spooks are applauding and thanking L0pht for their hacking activities. L0pht have been celebrated by the government and senators have thanked them personally- and again, the ranking spook-house the NSA are grateful to them for what they do.
Why is industry and the DoJ trying to go against the desires of government, the Senate, and the National Security Agency? And what has industry been feeding the DoJ to provoke this seriously misguided adventure?
Let's take your last point first. Your assertion that "cracking" and viruses did not exist prior to the Internet shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. Phrack ezine, the most well-known phreaking/hacking ezine, was founded around 1984. Teenagers and college kids were breaking into computers using modems and corporate dialups as early as the late 70s and early 80s. Viruses began to appear around the same time. You most certainly could have been a "cracker" in 1982, if you had been knowledgeable about computers at the time.
Now let's get to the hacker vs. cracker argument. Using "cracker" to refer to those who break into computers is incorrect. The term was coined in 1984, according to the Jargon file, to describe these types of people, years after the term "hacker" was already being used to refer to them. I personally continue to use "hacker" to refer to those who break security and deserve the moniker (such as L0pht Heavy Industries), and "script kiddie" to refer to those who merely download some exploits and run them. "Cracker" when applied to computers refers to the extremely talented asm coders who remove the copy protection from software (usually shareware), and hence the term is not related to this discussion.
Finally, These people you call "crackers" have indeed greatly advanced computers, and not just in the field of security. Many people who had a great influence on the development of computers became interested in computers while teenagers through phreaking/hacking. Steve Wozniak, who created the Apple I and Apple ][ personal computers in his garage, comes to mind. During the 1970s he was involved in "red boxing," the technique of using tones to trick payphones into thinking you'd inserted payment. He designed and built red boxes out of radio shack parts, and later moved on to designing and building personal computers. There are countless other influential people who got their start in similar ways.
You need to read up on some history before making uninformed statements.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Your ability to break into a computer using flaws in the original programs running on these machines equals your ability to find bugs in your own programs. Cracking (as opposed to being a mere script kiddie) is just finding bugs in other peoples programs without their consent and their knowledge. Cracking is just debugging in a very scarce and hostile development envionment.
DOJ to Sponsor Anti-Cracking program
The Justice department announced today that it would sponser a program to discourage children from attempting to circumvent the security of other people's computers. Press release available here.
The only 'brainwashing' I see here is in the
So far, the main reaction I've seen is fear that the DOJ will lump all slightly 'non-conformist' computer uses in with script kiddies and crackers. However, I see no evidence for this in the press release, apart from the fact that the 'wrong term' was used (and seriously, how many people would understand if they had substituted "crackers" for every instance of "hackers"?)
Consider this. Most young children don't deal well with ambiguities. How often do you hear them told "don't get near the fire -- unless you don't touch any of the coals or the flames; you can get close enough to warm your hands up, but don't burn them -- and if a stick is burning on one end you can hold that end but not the other!"
I may be about to tromp on lots of child-development theory, but I think that children and early adolescents tend to form very polarized opinions about things which become more complex as they gain experience and knowledge enough to recognize where the ambiguities fall. I believe that in the absence of a continuous stream of information tailored to continue this black-and-white picture of things, this early opinionation decays, having served its purpose already. What purpose is that? Simple. Keeping children from blundering into fires, from doing things, the gray areas of which they are unable to calculate.
And on top of that, the sort of stuff discussed in the article -- particularly spam and computer cracking -- isn't much of a gray area; on the contrary, these are almost universally seen as negative activities. (with the possible exception of breaking-and-informing -- "free security audits" -- but I don't think that happens much in practice. It's more: (1) A breaks into B's computer, messes things up; (2) B gets mad at A; (3) A says "hey, I was trying to help!")
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Look, for once the government might actually have a point. I suppose it depends on their definition of "hacking" and exactly what they plan to teach in these assemblies. But is this going to be brainwashing? Probably not, no more than pro-safety or anti-drug assemblies are at any rate; having been to many of these over the course of my childhood I can say I wasn't brainwashed.
Let's wait and see what these assemblies actually involve before passing judgement. Hell, who knows, perhaps they might actually teach the kids some online manners. I do hope they get the hacker/cracker distinction right (they probably won't though). I agree that this sort of thing isn't the government's job, but in an age where the vast majority of parents are too damn lazy and/or selfish to even teach their kids right from wrong (and spend time with the kids), someone has to do it. The government's far from the ideal choice, indeed they're the last choice I'd make for someone to teach people right from wrong, but until we get a generation of parents who care (I'm hoping the next one will have more sense than this one) I really see no other alternative.
When I was in elementary school, everyone said that DARE stood for "Drugs Are Really Exciting." That's basically all we were taught, namely what the different drugs did and how they'd make you feel cool.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Great. Now, not only will I have to deal with the popular misconception of what a hacker is, but I'll have to deal with an entire generation trained to believe that I'm a bad person. I fear that, despite some small victories, we're losing the hacker/cracker nomenclature battle on the large scale.
This isn't to say I don't have other objections to his campaign, of course, and I doubt I'd feel an more positive about an anti-cracking campaign...
--
Ian Peters
Hey... I can stop any time I want! Really! I'm only a social Linux user. I only use linux when I'm slashdotting! They told me everyone was doing it. It was peer pressure!
Parents should teach/show kids the importance (and the benefits!) of courtesy and consideration for others. Do that, and as a consequence, specific violations like spam, cracking, etc. will be seen for what they are: something that assholes do.
But do we really need or trust government to teach kids "Don't be an asshole" (to cover cracking) or "Don't be stupid" (to cover drugs) or other non-academic lessons? I think it's time to get government out of this business altogether. Then maybe some parents will no longer be confused about what lessons are their responsibility, and what lessons are society's. Everyone has to eventually face up to the fact: "It's up to me. If I fail, it won't get done. If I don't teach my kid, he will suck." That's the case anyway, but our education system tries to hide it, by making false claims that they are going to take care of the situation. And every time another one of these stupid liberal programs comes, the lie just gets thicker and more established, and it becomes that much easier for parents to be tricked into believing that it's not their problem.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I only needed to clarify the hacker vs. cracker thing because the slashdot summary confused the two terms by saying that hackers are responsible for the current prosperity in computers... implying that the DOJ was going against hackers. The DOJ is going against crackers, not hackers, and it is hackers, not crackers, that are responsible for the current computer age.
Yes, it is a play on words, but my point is not the play on words itself; only that to criticize the DOJ program as attacking the foundation of the current computer boom is misguided and a confusion as to what those two terms mean.
Personally, I don't really care about the whole cracker/hacker thing. This is one particular case however where confusion about the two has led to misunderstanding a fundamental issue.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Second, my original post has nothing to do with whether the DOJ program is effective or desirable. It has to do with the slashdot summary of the article being misguided in saying that the DOJ attack against crackers is an attack against the foundation of the current computer prosperity (i.e. hackers). These are two different things.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
When a child turns into a cracker, it is because someone sparked his interest. Its not because they want to go out and cause trouble. Its not because they just suddenly said "Hey, I want to break computers." This program can easily be considered a spark. Kids don't care about causing trouble. My guess is that this is going to make kids ever MORE curios about the world of computers. This is going to be the biggest blunder in anti-cracker history.
Hell, this might ever be good for the computer industry down the line. Those 15 year old cracker morons always realize down the line that they are retarded. Then and there, they either give up or actually become hackers. With more kids going down this road, there will be more script kiddies. That equals more stupid attacks on computers, which eventually means vendors may fix software or write it better in the first place. Then, years from now, some of those same kids could be working for those vendors. End result, software quality goes up. More kids become crackers. More adults become hackers. And the whole plan backfired, but still had positive results.
---------------------------
"I'm not gonna say anything inspirational, I'm just gonna fucking swear a lot"
---------------------------
Just to be the daemon's ... errr ... devil's advocate here :-), I'd like to ask where else do people get taught social mores and customs, internet or otherwise? For example, where was it picked up that it was not kosher to go around opening random neighbour's doors? (apart from those grisly TV reports a few years ago of people bing shot). Assuming that parents are the first stage in teaching kids the difference between right and wrong through the Pavlov technique of response-stimulus (ie a spank when they played up), then there is a fair chance that given the newness of the medium, they lack a few clues and therefore the community police see a small role to do some preemptive behaviour modification. How else would youngsters realise that certain behaviour is just not acceptable? Given the rate lawyers are inventing rules, I doubt whether anyone reads law books any more so how do people get shown the correct etiquette, and you can lump in all the silly things like mail pyramid schemes, procedures for not revealing passwords, etc.
That said, I suspect there are bigger problems that lead to cracker behaviour than a simple education campaign can solve. I recall a survey that noted crackers had a tendency to be poorly socialised with peers and come from broken households. Plastering over the results and ignoring the causes seem a little like taking the easy path. Also, given kids' usual attitude to authority, I wonder how effective any campaign would be, or whether it would make "hacking" cool and thus a legitimate activity for gaining peer respect and bragging rights.
I bet they had grafetti in caveman times as well. Oh well, technology comes and technology goes but social problems remain forever intractable.
LL
While you may debate the effectiveness of DARE and othter programs like it, I would argue that you're comparing apples to apricots.
Finally, I think you should consider that when this article says "hacking" they are definitely implying "cracking." An illegal and unethical act and if you have any doubts about the ethics, you should look up some of Gene Spafford's papers on the ethical nature of cracking.
err... I was responding to the exact words in the post I was replying to. He said ethics, right and wrong so those were the statements I was referring to. If you label it MORALITY or ETHICS doesn't really change my stance.
It should be easy to come up with a common set of ethical rules, as most people can agree on things are right
You hit the nail on the head and diluted your own argument with the word most (I added the emphasis). What if I'm not _most_ people and I happen to disagree with the public school's moral education? (Such as: killing is wrong unless there is a war or self defense, then its ok. Maybe I don't want my kid taught that.)
And no, I disagree with you. *I* will decide how to teach my children about MORALITY _AND_ ETHICS, thank you. YOU may think that "Golden Rule" and "Killing other people" are black/white issues, but maybe I don't.
Ultimately, as a parent it is *my* choice to influence my child's sense of values, morality and ethics. Thank you, but the public school needs to concentrate (and do a much better job, IMO) on fundamentals like math, english, science, phys ed, etc and I'll worry about the finer points that are _far_ more subjective than you seem to imply.
Sure, there are lots of 'grey' areas that can be argued one way or another. Exactly my point that this should be left in the hands of parents and not opening a whole ugly can of worm about wast 'most' people should agree are black and white, right and wrong issues.
To get back to the subject at hand, there is nothing wrong with this bias as long as it is recognised and able to be controlled for. The major problem arises with publicly-funded education: the cost of private education rises until only the middle and upper classes can afford to choose what focus their childrens' educations will have (the poor can still get into private, esp. parochial, schools on scholarships and work-study programs, but it's made more difficult). Many who can afford it don'r make their own arrangements regarding education because it's easier just to pack them off in the morning to the same old place.
And so what might have been a minor program in a particular school (annoying, but no big deal) becomes a nation-wide nuisance. Although my major beef is with the term 'hacker.' That poor word is about on its last knees from the abuse it has received at the hands of those who should know better. This will probably drive the last nail in its coffin. Pity, as it was a good word.
Discouraging computer crime, OTOH, is no bigger a deal than discouraging physical crime. The argument that computers should not be left open does have some merit, but exploiting holes is hardly using an open door; it is sneaking through a side window. In a trespass case you might be able to argue that the gate to the yard was open and so you let yourself in, but saying you hopped the wall because you had a ladder would hold no water whatsoever.
I'm not so sure about that. AFAIK, there are two distinct groups in the minds of most Americans. There are those who know their way around computers, and there are those who know how to break into computers. They even understand that those in the former group often have the skills of the second.
We call the former "hackers" and the latter "crackers". Most people call the former "techies" or "computer whizzes" and the latter "hackers".
My take on this is that the DOJ is trying to say that the online world is a dangerous place. IMHO, it is, and it is much more dangerous than it was when I was posting on C-128 bboards in the 70s and 80s.
From what I read in the article, McGruff is more interested in keeping kids safe when they play on computers than in keeping them from learning about them. More than anything, this sounds like the computer equivalent of "How to walk around town without getting run over by cars."
--The basis of all love is respect
C'mon folks, let's be realistic. Language is a living, dynamic system, one which is not determined by the opinions of a few, but by the general usage. And although in our minds, there is a difference between the terms hacker and cracker, the common usage has passed us by. It's pretty much impossible to stem this tide.
It's one thing to keep using the term cracker; it's quite another to get so upset when someone uses hacker to mean the same thing.
Then again, where I come from, cracker is an extremely offensive term to refer to white people.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Who is going to come out and say that the current war on freedom of information and intellect on the Internet is not another war on drugs now?
It might seem hard to imagine, since drugs and "computer crime" are in essense so different, but crackdown after crackdown after increased punishment after useless law out of touch with reality is taking us right down the same road we have walked with drugs - a road that has done more damage to our society then anything else since the last great war.
I think that as computer networks and the flow of information becomes more and more important to our lives, the danger in the criminalisation of our best and brightest will truly start being dangerous. We risk to do to our networks what the war on drugs has done to our city streets...
-
No, you are very wrong here.
The actions that the American DOJ wants to stop may be cracking (there are those of us who believe this is an engineering, not a justice question, but forget that for the moment), but in effect campaigns like this are very much attacking the entire hacker mentality.
If we start pushing into our kids minds from the very beginning that playing with computers, security, networking etc is something bad and tabu, then that is what we will get. If parents start being concerned, not encouraging, when their kids are interested in communication, it will hurt the future Linus's much more than the future Mitnick's.
The people that are making these desitions, designing these campaigns, and even the target audiences are not informed enough on the topic to be able to draw the very thin line between experimenting and cracking. It should not be happening this way.
-
I think what really kills the idea of "talking to your children" is the fact that few politicians, school administrators, teachers and parents want to take time to answer *every* question children have about the vast gray area that exists between black (wrong) and white (right).
Let's take a few examples.
1) Forest fires started by playing with matches are bad. Only you can prevent forest fires.
Sure, forest fires started carelessly are generally bad. But lightening started brush fires can do a lot of good by clearing highly flammable underbrush before it becomes an extreme. Have too much of it and fires burn so hot, it sterilizes the ground and kills seed pods (cones) from conifers.
So, in some cases, fire can be *good*
2) Drugs are bad. Marijuana is a gateway drug. Smoke dope and you're a heroin junkie next month.
No. Marijuana possesion has been probably the most disproportionately punished "crime" in recent memory. The gateway drug evidence is scant. Yes there are some bad ass mofo drugs out there, but weed isn't it.
3) All hacking is bad. If you hack, you suck eggs. Just look at Kevin Mitnick. You don't want to look like *him* do you? Going beyond the GUI is bad. Your government wouldn't approve.
Well, I really don't know how they are going to taylor that. But, I'm pretty sure it will be along the lines of the two earlier examples. Basically, an elephant gun as a flyswatter.
Instead, we (society/schools) ought to be willing to answer questions that stem from curiosity. And answer them honestly.
As for hacking, we ought to distinguish between digging into a system to foster creative problem solving, vs. cracking with an intent to damage data, etc.
Without explaining the subtleties, I think children get a sense they've been lied to when they find out these things aren't as evil as their education made them seem. Hence, a lot more of what they were taught must be bupkiss as well. Game over.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
You're already making judgement calls there, and crucial assumptions. Both of those statements are, quite frequently, utterly wrong.
What *could* be taught, perhaps, is not to take everything at face value, and that in order to live in a society it's typically better to follow at least some basic principles, such as not going mucker and randomly offing people. If they attack society, then they need to realize that it often *will* fight back: the right of choice is paired with responsibility for one's actions.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Bah.
There was, actually, a significant amount of Soviet-sponsored infiltration into US and British networks and populations. For instance, the KGB subverted intelligence officers (Kim Philby, Aldrich Ames, etc) who attained *high* ranks (Russia Desk, anyone? And Philby, at one time, looked to be the next *head* of British Intel. -- practically the greatest coup a TLA can achieve); scientists (many who sympathized, and deliberately leaked classified nuclear secrets); office staff (such as secretaries to, say, heads of state); activists (the Black Panthers and the Weathermen were, indirectly and covertly, supported by the KGB and friends. Ditto the anti-'Nam movement.); conspiracy theorists (with the KGB attempting to turn them against the CIA); and so forth. And, generally, we did the same, albeit to a usually much less-successful degree. They still do, and so do we.
Incidentally, based on the best estimates at the time regarding conventional and nuclear assets, there were some periods during which our calculations suggested that a Soviet first strike could actually *work*.
As for vandalism, it's a crime. Period. You know the saying that the right to swing a punch stops at the other person's nose? That holds for corporate property, as well. Activists like Nader, who speak and provoke debate, are being a lot more principled than wannabe "protesters" who defile a page, think they're all that, and probably could not even articulate a remotely intelligent argument about why they claim the "right" to do so.
Does somebody who wants to disagree with you have the right to blast your house with a paint-filled water cannon? No? Didn't think so.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
While there is a bit of Orwellian humor to the piece, what we're seeing here is analogous to the taming of the old west. In them olden days people with the guns made the rules and in the wild internet days hackers made their own rules. Like the old west, mom and pop have set up corner stores and don't appreciate all their hard work being held hostage to the whims of every two-bit dictator who hold up the stage or hack into their bank accounts.
:-)
Hacking was fine back in the days when nobody kept any money or credit card numbers on networked servers and the most interesting thing you could do was browse the source code to wampus hunt. Today hackers can bring down giant, multinational banking systems, brokerage houses and even TRW. So you have to ask yourself, do you REALLY want a joy-riding hormone handicapped teen drooling over your financial records?
Hacking today really is far more serious, with the possibility of doing far more damage than it was even a year ago. Way, way, WAY too much money has been pumped into the net (ask redhat and soon slashdot) and millions of people have a very vested interest in ensuring that things run as smoothly as they possibly can.
So yes, kids do need to be educated that breaking into a computer system isn't a game anymore. It may be fun and challenging but it's also illegal (and a felony to boot) and they better learn fast that if they want to play the game they better be willing to pay the price of admission if they're caught.
My only suggestion would be: While the DOJ is all hot-to-trot on preventing hacking they might want to toss in some additional anti-drug messages as well
Linux - the gateway operating system.
only im america...
This kind of thing should be in the church where it belongs.
Hacking is an abomination against God. Hack and be cast down with Satan and Mitnick. Can I get a Hallelujah and $1,000?
i'm seeing a lot of comparisons to the DARE program here, and that's not at all surprising. i think we're going to find that this campaign is going to suffer the same fate -- an excessive amount of the public's tax dollars wasted in a program that makes the situation worse.
of all the (non-biased) statistics i've ever seen, DARE graduates do more drugs than their non-DARE-educated peers. is this a surprise to anyone? children are fed drug propoganda, and kids aren't stupid -- they know they're not getting the full story. so a good chunk of the kids become more interested in finding out what this whole "drug thing" is about and start experimenting.
as mentioned above in the "this is going to backfire" thread, this program will probably have the same outcome -- a good chunk of the kids will become curious about "hacking" and start finding out what it's all about on their own. this entire program is going to waste a whole lot of money, and just end up with even more script kiddies to plague the internet.
what needs to be taught is ethics. and sorry, but i don't trust the DOJ to teach their twisted form of ethics to my kids -- i'll do that myself, thanks.
sorry i'm a little bitter -- though i don't blame it, DARE still played a pretty big part in some of my friends getting addicted to Crystal Methamphetamine. now they don't listen to any scientific drug research because all DARE taught them was that all drug information is propoganda.
- j
--
"The only guys who might buy [the Apple iBook] are the kind who wear those ludicrous baggy pants with the built-in rope that's used for a belt."
- John C Dvorak - PC Magazine
"Should be what it always has been"? The original definition of the term was the one that you would find in the Jargon File. It is a rather ancient term (sorry, RMS, not to say that you or anyone else from "back then" are ancient ;). I really can't explain the correct usage of the term beyond that. However.. when computing became mildly less difficult to learn, a number of people who didn't have the intelligence or creativity of hackers to learn how to do anything /useful/ with a computer decided it might be a good idea to crack into other people's computers, ostensibly to "prove their worth". To compound this ethical violation, they referred to themselves as "hackers" (which began a long tradition carried on by crackers, warez d00dz, and script kiddies today to refer to themselves in a glorified manner they clearly do /not/ deserve). It shouldn't be too hard to see how this quickly escalated..
You're blatantly trolling and obviously /quite/ clueless. Hacker as "programming enthusiast" not "computer terrorist" is the /old school definition/. Just because Joe Public is a fscking idiot doesn't mean we are going to trash our entire culture. Grr.
~ Kish
I would like to reassert my wish for filters that allow me to /not/ view comments from certain users. Like this "bright" individual here. Many people refer to themselves as hackers. The term is commonplace on Slashdot. Richard M. Stallman is a hacker. So is, well, everyone in the free software or open source movement that actually contributes decent code, I'd imagine.
I quote this sentence only to illustrate why ignorance and utter stupidity are self-perpetuating. This sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. Not exactly structurally sound. Obviously this person has a few self-esteem problems, as well. Oh, I mean.. what an intelligent message you have, there, sir.. We'll kindly relay that message to RMS, ESR, Linus Torvalds, and others. They really do suck. Real badly. What a bunch of posers. Grr.
~ Kish
Pardon my rather over-the-edge example, but you know, people who spread their own ignorance and stupidity around because they believe they're above the truth, or rather that they are the One Truth, and that everyone else should just shut the fuck up and believe whatever Joe Idiot believes even though he's an ignorant twit who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.. Hopefully you won't think what I'm about to say is my actual opinion. It isn't.
Yeah, I agree completely. I'm also not old enough to remember the Holocaust. It never really happened, anyway, because I didn't experience it. I'm sick of people bitching about the Jews. I say, fuck them. They need to get over it. Stupid idiots.
Ugh.. At any rate. Calling a "hacker" a "cracker", or vice versa, is about as intelligent as calling an "apple" and "orange", or vice versa. They are two completely different things. Hacker is the original fscking definition, and likely, no one gives a damn if you are fed up with the truth . If you want to live in a world of lies, fine. But keep them to yourself. Or go into politics. Your choice, really.
~ Kish
Public Education System Ministry of Truth
If cracking is a crime at all (much less a very serious one), then a computer is property which can be trespassed on. The data I have on it is my property. I have no real problem with this as long as it is consistent.
However, if this is the case, then if I have a PC with Linux and Microsoft's OS install formats my disk, I can sue them and win because they destroyed my property. If I'm on Windows and I install Quicktime or MS Media Player, and it grabs control of all my image files, I can sue because it is disrupting my property in ways I didn't ask for or desire. In short, if cracking is a crime at all, then the computer industry are criminals, because so much of what they do invades your computer's 'space' and changes stuff around as if they owned it- sometimes causing data loss and other types of damage.
There's no way around this- even if the current situation isn't this clearcut, the trend toward smart updates and remote-disable copy protection completely goes into the same areas crackers go. In a situation where Microsoft wants to be able to block and withhold your computer use when _they_ think you've done something wrong, where is the difference? It obliterates the concept of computer data as property- and if computers are not property but a public resource you don't actually own, then there is no argument that crackers shouldn't be allowed to access them.
If computer data is property, then the computer industry is working very hard to make it effectively not be property anymore.
Isn't that the root of the problem?
There are times when I fear that there is no point trying to re-educate the world. "Hacking" is now so firmly established in the minds of the general populace as meaning cracking, that maybe we need to just give up and decide on a new name for monkeying around with computers. It's sad, but linguistic inertia can be very difficult to overcome.
Politas
I have a possible solution, however. If these same kids had the opportunity to take computer science classes early on, they could find the challenge they needed in producing good software. Computer science education in high schools is terrible; it should be offered at multiple levels and even begun in middle school. With the infusion of technology into the workplace, schools would be able to justify the change as useful. Hopefully someone will catch on that this would be a good thing, though with the current status of education, who knows.
--
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Yes, I realize crackers do advance the state of the art in security. But that is only one aspect of computers---albeit a critical one---and cracker's methods can and frequently are highly questionable, when other methods of achieving security are perhaps as effective or more so. This actually opens up an intereseting debate: which is actually better for security, open source methodology for peer review or crackers forcing corporations to take security seriously? Can crackers use their skills in better ways that are not destructive? This question of course refers to crackers that actually want to advance security, not the purely malicious idiots that are only interested in destruction. (Political crackers are another category altogether.)
Regardless, criticizing the DOJ's move as anti-hacking is extremely misguided. The DOJ's move is anti-*cracking*, not anti-hacking. Our current prosperity is indeed in large part due to a generation of kids hacking... but not cracking.
Actually, there is one more interesting point to consider. All of us Gen X geek kid types, at the time, how many of us were really cracking anyway? Personal computers weren't really networked; did viruses even exist? I was definitely a young hacker, but now that I think about it, could I have been a cracker even if I wanted to? Until being exposed to the Internet at MIT in 1987, I don't think I could have been, or even really known what that was.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The whole "War on Drugs", DARE, "Just Say No", and government-funded propaganda aimed at youth sickens me. Essentially, it's the two major parties cooperating to fund bipartisan (no, Americans, "bipartisan" does not mean universal) political advertising. The drug war is just a political and propaganda tool that the government uses to further the enslavement of the middle class and the dehumanization of the lower class. It's part of the political platform of those two parties, and as such shouldn't be funded with government money.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
After browsing the hundred-odd replies, I'm struck by the fact that most people are not happy (one way or another) but nobody has suggested any viable alternative. Now, given the usual libertarian attitude (at least if that is what OpenSource is suppose to be in empowering individuals), if you were a parent, what would you physically do? I'd like to toss in an idea (which unfortunately fell through for lack of funding ... so what's new with local government :-( ) that I once discussed with a community liason with a police parent partnership group.
/.ers can think of other potential feasible solutions and have an idea bake-off. As the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, then you're the problem.
{Put on flame-retardent overalls}
The concept was to install a number of "playpen" computers that kids could use to "break in". Similar in principle to providing rollerblade rinks to avoid them killing themselves on the roads. Would select a mix of OSs like Linux, FreeBSD, TrustedIRIX in order of increasing difficulty and tools for hunting down security holes and the philosophy of true hackerdom. The goal is to immerse them into the cultural landscape by providing reading material of role models and what traits the hacker community admired (talent, knowledge, modesty?) Then encourage kids to form groups/tribes to alternatively protect and to penetrate as far as possible undetected (home/away game) whilst the machines were still in a relatively controlled environment (ie in the community centre overlooked by someone responsible). That way they could learn skills (can we say forensic computing here!) and understand the role of a civil society at the same time (the only cyberlaws are what you can technologically enforce yourself!). Remember the only difference between a locksmith and a burgler is intent. By turning their energy into a competitive attitude towards computer mastery rather than notoriety, positive traits can in theory be reinforced.
{Flame suit off}
While the idea hasn't found any gung-ho mainstream champions to get it off the ground as yet, instead of whinging about the ineffectiveness of governments (which afterall is collectively suppose to represent your desires no matter how klutzy the implementation) perhaps
LL
Hmm, and whose ethics and definition of right and wrong are to be taught? Yours? The government's? Decided by consensus of a blue-panel committee of leading politicians, buisness leaders and private citizent appointed by the president of the United States? No thank you.
I, as a parent of school-age children want to retain the choice to do this myself, or send my kids to a church where the ethics and sense of right and wrong are close enought to my standards.
Not that any of the other government programs seem to be all that successful, but this is just another example of the feds overstepping their bounds. A few reasons (many of which have already been brought up):
There are more, but those are the only ones I can enumerate. I guess we can only hope that this program is as effective as DARE. At least in the town where I live, the DARE officer collects pot pipes and shows 'em off when he goes to school to discuss the evil of drugs. And he takes frequent breaks to go outside and smoke tobacco. Great example.
I think the good results of the DARE program are the bumper stickers:
So what's the slogan for the new program going to be? "BAAAHHHHHH...Microsoft good, shellcode bad"? "CARE...to leave the case on"? (CARE: Computer Abuse Resistance Education or Completely Absurd and Ridiculous anti-Education)
(The reason I bring up the DARE comparisons is the similarity in programs. Basically, it's just another form of brainwashing that we, the taxpayers, get to finance.)
This could be low signal/noise.. I just woke up and am now in a rather unhappy mood thanks to this latest idiocy.. You've been warned. :)
Ok, how many of us actually know /children/ who qualify for the term hacker? Or even cracker? I think the grand majority of these would be termed "script kiddies". And if these idiots can't even figure out the correct terminology, it's really no wonder they're so defenseless. =P
Ok, so.. Not only do they have to impose their flawed definition of the term "hacker" upon the public at large, now they have to twist it in the mind of small children? Shouldn't there be some kind of law that prohibits the government from /lying/ to small children on a massive scale? Argh.. I can't even think properly on this.. It's too fscking stupid.. Grr.
I mean, there are already enough clueless idiots out in the world who, upon being asked for the definition of the word hacker, get it.. enh!! dead wrong! But now whenever a person who went through the educational system during a time when this brainwashing campaign was in effect is exposed to the term "hacker", they might denounce the "offender" who brought it up as some kind of "drug dealer", and refuse to listen to their "subversive" or (religious children may choose to insert any religious word that attaches a strong stigma to the "subversive" or "hell-bound" individual) explanation of what the word really means? Or something equally ludicrous? Talk about.. stupid..
Sorry, but if some random script kiddies can bust into your system, you probably /deserved/ it. Perhaps someone more competent should be hired to replace you if you work the government or a company and find yourself in this situation? =P
No, hacking is clever and /sexy/.. And everything about that paragraph would be funny if it wasn't so sad.. And so.. stupid..
Oh joy.. another way for MS and AOL to spread evil across the land..
The first sentence was just awful.. "The Justice Department wants to save children before they turn into hackers." Um.. sure. The world could always use a few less programmers that actually have a passion for what they're doing.. Or not. Oh wait, they already discourage the production of more good programmers in school.. By teaching them Pascal. Better than Basic, I suppose, but not by a whole lot. You know, until I learned about C, I always thought programming sucked. Whoever had the bright idea to teach Pascal in recent years instead of C in high school needs to.. Well, nevermind. Let's just say something not very pretty..
~ Kish
I'm not sure I agree that the current United States computer prosperity is entirely due to crackers.
Crackers are certainly very interesting as they come in many shapes and sizes, but do they provide any real value to the computer industry?
When was the last time you were up at 3am working on some interesting problem and said "Man, I could really use a cracker about now"?
Now I realize that Keebler's would very much like you to believe that they rule the world by holding the reigns on the saltine monopoly.
But come on... let's get real here.
The real powers are Hostess and Coca-Cola. As long as they have hold of the distribution of Twinkies and Coke, they control the main source of energy behind the entire Internet revolution.
And I notice that the DOJ is doing nothing about this!!!!
Ok, it's time to come out of the closet. When I was a lad, I was a "cracker". Oh, not a good one, or even a terribly motivated one (my exploits in college mostly involved doing geurilla sys-admin when the real admins were away, and people needed to get work done). But that's not the point. I was one of the evil few who you should fear and despise.
Here's the scary part: in my daily work as a senior software engineer (oooh! a title, I get a title!) and all-around UNIX-monkey I use every scrap of knowledge that I gained back then. I *need* to know what kind of exploits people will look for in my software. I *need* to be able to put myself into the mind of the cracker. In previous jobs I've had to deal with active intrusions. No one else had a clue what to expect, and I had to spoon-feed them all.
I'm not saying that you should give every kid a "breaking in 101" class, but those who show the insight, skill and motivation to subvert security should be helped to find the "good path". Their skills should be respected. If you just turn a cold eye to them and tell them that what they are doing is evil, they will end up working against you. If you nurture their talent and push them to accept responsibility for their capabilities, they will be valuable members of the community.
As a closing thought, the most important lesson that I learned was when someone that I felt great respect for told me that he knew what I had been doing all along, and he didn't bother to stop me. But, when he took action was when I started telling others how to do it. I could have ended up writing exploit programs for script-kiddies, but that one conversation ended the possibility as firmly as a bullet. Say the right thing at the right time, and you can change someone's world.