On Hacker Manifestos, Origin Stories, and Definitions

In my seemingly never-ending quest to discover just what makes a hacker, a hacker, I've explored tropes, stereotypes, various archetypes, and hacker history. But there exist people who are less patient than I and they want to know what a hacker is, right here and now. Those people are often referred to various hacker manifestos. And there are plenty to choose from. These manifestos are often as varied and eccentric as the authors who wrote them. But there are a few common threads that unite the manifestos. One thread is purpose. All hacker manifestos attempt to define the hacker, his motivations, goals, interests, and ideas. Naturally, a manifesto may say more about the hacker who wrote it than it does about other hackers. But hackers are more similar than they are different, so any single manifesto gets pretty damn close to the truth about hackers.

As a starting point, let's look at one of the most renowned hacker manifestos, The Hacker's Manifesto. This manifesto was written by Loyd Blankenship who went by the moniker The Mentor. It was written and published in the ezine Phrack in 1986. A good year for hackers. In my personal opinion, The Hacker's Manifesto perfectly captures all of the energy, creativity, intensity, and reckless foolishness of a young hacker. The hacker, a true digital native. And he proves it with every keystroke and mouse click.

But Loyd wrote The Hacker's Manifesto in 1986, which is a good twenty years from the origin of the word "hacker". It's unclear when the word "hacker" was first coined, but early usage can be found in MIT's student newspaper The Tech, printed in 1963. At that time, the word "hacker" was often used to indicate a person who had a high degree of technical knowledge about any subject, not necessarily computing. A few years later, it came to mean a person who was skilled with using and manipulating computers or a phone system (many of the original hackers were programmers). Indeed, the 1963 newspaper used the term "hacker" as a slur against the phone phreakers of the time. In the late 60's and early 70's, during the time when MIT rationed-out interface time with its mainframe computer, hackers would find exploits in the system in order to grant themselves additional interface time. This type of hacking is the most defining event and it greatly contributed to the continued shaping of the word "hacker". Suddenly, the word was gaining new meanings and new connotations. Hackers came to be associated with computer criminals who found exploits in systems and broke into them. This association was pounded into the common man's head during the early to late 1980's. Movies, television shows, and media of all kinds reinforced this new image of the hacker. And, thus, the word hacker has become inseparable from that of a computer criminal. Still, there is more to the story.

Before The Hacker's Manifesto came into existence, the loudly boasted goal of every hacker was the free transfer and distribution of information. These hackers scoffed at the idea of copyrights and patents. These hackers insisted that their curiosity was the primary motivating force behind their hacking. They wanted to learn, explore, dissect, analyze, and share information. Whether this was generally true or false is a hotly contested topic. Regardless, the desire to spread information does seem to be a running theme among hackers. Additionally, many hackers wish to reclaim the word. They want the word to return to its original meaning (Hacker: a person who uses a computer creatively or a programmer who writes code or both), even going so far as to draw distinction between computer criminals and hackers by calling the criminal element "crackers". Unfortunately, once Pandora's Box has been opened, it is impossible to close it. No matter how valiantly these hackers try, the word may forever be associated with criminal activity.

While the stigma may forever remain with the word "hacker", there is a significant cultural and technological shift happening right now that seeks to vindicate the hacker. Cyber-crime is more prevalent than ever before, which only entrenches the stigma associated with the word "hacker", but, due to this increasing cyber-crime, people have come to appreciate the abilities of friendly hackers. White-hat hackers, regardless of whether they are called hackers or not, are rising to the challenge and routinely combat cyber-criminals, wherever they strike. And other white-hat hackers endeavor to strengthen computing systems and infrastructure against future attacks.  

Still, while most people are more than happy to accept the aid of hackers, they still view hackers with suspicion at best and hatred at worst. Perhaps it is just the nature of the beast. Anyone who has the kind of "superpowers" hackers are said to possess will always be held in suspicion, no matter the side they're on. Looks like white-hat hackers will just have to live with it. At least they can seek comfort and confidence in their fellow hackers. The hacker community is strong. Each member knows the struggles experienced by another and can seek comfort in each other.

Today, as you probably know, the word "hacker" is thrown around with reckless abandon. Likely because of its descriptive, fear-inducing, and impactful nature. It's a heavy word and it commands attention. The media won't stop abusing it, politicians won't stop abusing it, the common man won't stop misusing it. It's here to stay. Looks like we just have to come to terms with it. But just what is a hacker?

You'll likely receive 100 different answers to such a deceivingly simple question. As you know, the word has many meanings and will mean one, or many things, from one person to the next. I've already listed a few definitions. A hacker is a programmer or a tinkerer or a mischief maker or a criminal. There is no longer just one definition for that word. In my post, The Hacker Mythos, I defined a hacker as a person who is "adept at technological manipulation". I believe this definition gets the closest to the essential character of the hacker. Everything else, the youthful recklessness, disrespect toward authority, the energy, the intensity, the creativity, etc. are just extraneous, yet fascinating, features.

The hacker will forever be an interesting character. His exploits, both real, exaggerated, or mythological, will continue to fascinate people and drive the culture. As for hacker manifestos, you can bet your ass there will be plenty more. The original hackers may be well into their 70s by now, but we've only caught a glimpse of the hacker's potential. I can't quite say what the future holds, but I'd bet every dollar in my bank account that the hackers of the future will be among the movers and shakers of the world.

The Future doesn't have Ads?

Ever since the web went commercial in the mid 90s, the Internet has become just another avenue for advertising companies to exploit without end. If you have even a cursory amount of experience on the web, then you know this to be true. There are ads everywhere on the web. They range from small banners to mid-video "shout-outs". The more annoying forms include popups that slow your web browser to a halt and make viewing content a complete chore. But why do advertisers and content-creators do this to us humble consumers? In the name of the almighty dollar, of course! (Surprise!) Yes, everyone today is looking to get paid, and many are completely willing to whore themselves out to get paid. Now, I'm not bad-mouthing money or the profit-motive. We need money to live or, at least, live comfortably. However, many people want to become millionaires off of advertising and this trend has really poisoned the net. There are better ways to make money on and off the Internet, and overzealous advertising is one of the most poisonous trends soaring across the net.

And Internet users have taken notice. Tech-savvy users have been using AdBlock (or similar software) for years and the not-so-tech-savvy users are quickly jumping onto the same bandwagon. This has hit most websites hard. Very hard. So hard, in fact, that some websites are forbidding users who use Adblock from viewing content. A very ballsy move. Honestly, whenever I get stopped by some webpage that demands I turn off Adblock before continuing to the main website, I just close-out the tab altogether. My way of saying "Fuck You" to the owners of the site. I didn't need to read the article that badly anyway. I think it's rather presumptuous that the website's owners would think their content is so good that I should turn off my Adblocker in order to view it.

Am I being harsh? I am. But I have good reason for being harsh, believe it or not. Please understand. I don't have anything personal against making money or even advertising on the web. But when website owners populate their site with an obscene amount of advertising - advertising that often contains malware, advertising that slows my web browser to a halt, advertising that wastes my time and tests my patience - I get a little angry. And there is even more to my anger.

Corporations, organizations, and just about anyone who has ever wanted to make money off of advertising has changed the very nature of the web. To understand this, let's take a look into the past. 

In the days of old, ads were once used as a means to get a little cash to support a website. Websites were often made by hobbyists who were passionate about their content. Supporting the website was the goal and ads were just means to that goal. The website's target audience understood this, so they didn't mind too much. On top of this, the ads were unobtrusive and benign. Typically, they were located on the top of the page, as a small banner, or on the very bottom of the page, as another small banner.

However, times have changed. People have realized that misleading content and click-bait titles are the best means to raking in the most amount of cash for the least amount of effort. The goals of content creation have changed. To reiterate, originally, the goal of a website was to produce solid content. Content was often produced by hobbyists who produced with a passion that isn't often seen these days. Advertising, back then, was more of a means of getting money to keep the website going and the content coming. Today, ads are used a bit differently. Ads are no longer used to support the content, rather, content is created to pull the most traffic in order to rake in the most money from ads. Ads don't support content, content supports ads. Advertisers have turned the purpose of the original websites on its head. Additionally, this is why every article posted on Facebook has a click-bait title. The authors want to pull as much traffic as possible so the ads they host on their websites can get the most exposure possible. More exposure means more money. Very simple, yet so diabolical and poisonous.

Today's website is no longer a labor of love created by passionate hobbyists. Today's website is a money-machine. The success of a website today is measured not in the content's ability to enrich both the author's and audience's lives, but in the number of ad-clicks the site generates. Just plain insidious. But, to play the devil's advocate, shouldn't people be paid for the content they produce? Living ain't free y'know? Now there's a touchy subject. I like the idea of people making money, but I don't like the idea of the web becoming one giant advertisement. I'm torn, really I am. I think whether people should earn money from advertisements is an issue that should remain between the content-creator and their audience. The content-creator may think he deserves the money, but if the audience disagrees, then the content-creator doesn't deserve to make money since the audience holds the purse. Sounds fair, right? Being a content-creator myself, I understand why some content-creators may be upset by my opinion on the subject. We would all like a little, or a lot, more money for the work we put in. But, in order to get that money, we must provide content that overrides the burden of actually viewing that content. Our audience holds the purse, so content-creators are beholden to their audience and the audience decides whether we deserve any kind of profit. 

Adblock is poised to rock the world of advertising. Adblock, and its bed-fellows, are about to set the Internet free. As mentioned above, some websites are creating barriers for folks who use Adblock. And many other websites that rely on advertising, supported by articles with click-bait titles, are starting to feel the squeeze. And many veteran web-surfers out there are more than happy to see them suffer. Suffer for what they have done to users and what they have done to the web. I can't say that I haven't experienced a bit of glee at the thought of the end of click-bait articles and misleading content.

Some websites however, instead of erecting AdBlocker blockers, have taken a more sensible route. They've made their advertisements less obnoxious and more appropriate per the website's theme and content. I think this is the best route for these websites to take, well, the best route outside of banning advertisement altogether, but that just isn't the world we live in. The use of ad blockers has, unfortunately, spurred an increase in guerrilla marketing. Guerrilla marketing is marketing that follows a different route from traditional advertisement. In guerrilla marketing, instead of using billboards, web-banners, and popups, advertising is carefully bundled within content. In some instances, it becomes impossible to separate the content from the advertising (which could be its own problem in the future). Many blame ad blockers for the advent of guerrilla marketing on the web, but ad blockers are not to blame since guerrilla marketing has existed long before the first ad blockers came onto the market. Still, as mentioned previously, ad blockers have increased the use of guerrilla marketing. Fortunately, guerrilla marketing isn't as obnoxious as the traditional web ads. Unfortunately, it's sneakier and threatens to eat up space that could have been used by genuine content. I get a feeling I'll talk more about guerrilla marketing in the future.

Have I experienced guerrilla marketing? You bet! Most people have even though they may not recognize it at first. I often a visit a website that has succumbed to both guerrilla marketing and traditional tactics. The site shall go unnamed. The website, these days, has more advertising than it does content. In fact, it actively, and unabashedly, substitutes advertising in the place of genuine content. Advertising has taken over coveted spots that were once held by only the best content. It has been a steady and slow transition, but it has occurred nevertheless. I've had the displeasure of watching it happen over the course of five years. That website, today, is really nothing more than one giant advertisement, with spats of content here and there. There are only a few sections of it that have escaped the menace of advertising, but even those are showing signs of falling into the marketing trap. All I can say is I hope the money was worth it. I know the owner. He's a good man. I can't say much else. It's a shame, really.

But what about Cybermantics? Will I ever succumb to the allure of online advertising? I may, one day, add advertisements to my blog. Should that day ever come, I'll keep the advertising tasteful, relevant, and unobtrusive, just like the good ol' days. Would allowing ads on this blog make me a hypocrite? For me, that would depend entirely on the ads purpose. Does the blog exist to support the ads or do the ads exist to support the blog? If the former, then I will admit to being a hypocrite. Does advertising have a place on the web? That can only be answered by the content-creators, web-designers, and their audiences. To each his own, as always.

So, does the future have ads? The future will have ads. Ad blockers send a powerful message, but advertisers are crafty. After all, their jobs depend upon selling a product or service and I'm sure there are content-creators out there who are more than willing to help them along by means of guerrilla marketing. Advertising on the web is a Pandora's Box that can never be closed, but, it can be curtailed by users who are just as crafty as the marketers they seek to evade. 

Please, if you enjoyed this article, I recommend reading this article by Jason Scott. He's a lot more eloquent than I am and, even though I don't completely agree with his position, he offers a little something more to chew on. 

Technology makes Scamming Easy

It's that time of the year again. Yep, you guessed it. That time when all of those Indian scammers start coming out of the woodwork to scam the elderly and ignorant out of their hard-earned money. Honestly, it seems to get worse every year. I've already had three scammers contact either me or my immediate family, attempting to get some kind of information or money from us. Most of these scammers brought some kind of veiled threat along with them i.e. Contact our toll-free support department in order to unlock your computer. These folks are relentless. They'll get your information or money in any way they can. Scamming is a big business. A big business made possible by all of this wonderful technology around us. We'll get to that in a bit. 

But first, let's talk about scamming. Scamming is something that has been around for as long as humans have walked upon this big ball of dirt. So long as there is something to gain from scamming, scamming will continue to exist. But just what is scamming? Scamming is the act of obtaining something of value through fraudulent or dishonest means. For example, if someone gives someone else a lot of money, in order to buy a boat, and the supposed owner skips town, that person has been scammed. Really, it's a simple concept. But it is often confused. What makes a scam a scam is dishonest intent. If a guy asks a bunch of people to invest in his startup-company, and those people invest but the company goes bankrupt in the end, they weren't scammed because the owner didn't intend for the company to go bankrupt. And he didn't intend to take the money and run. If the owner honesty communicated his intentions to his investors, then it isn't a scam. Onto technology. 

Technology is a great thing, no doubt about that, but it has brought baggage along with it. Today's technology, like yesterday's technology, has opened up an increasing number of scamming avenues. Perhaps the widest of these avenues was created by the telephone system. The telephone is perhaps the greatest tool any scammer has at their disposal. One of these reasons is that the victim of the scam can't reach through the phone and strangle the scammer. The second reason is that it is often hard to verify just who is on the other end of the line. Indeed, many scammers impersonate people of high reputation in order to gain the trust of their victims. And the victims usually can't tell the difference between the person of high-rep and the scammer. The art of the telephone-based scam relies on social engineering, charisma, and a bit of knowledge. Most people can pull it off. There's a very low barrier of entry using this method, which is another reason it is so common. Finally, it's just plain effective. Millions of people freely give away valuable information over the phone with only a little prompting. Think of the classic case of the elderly lady who gives away her social security number while ordering a pizza. Or, more subtly, the guy who accidentally gives away his name and address to a "census staffer". Collecting information over the phone is really just too easy. Is it any wonder why Indians, famous for being knowledgeable tech-support, use this avenue to conduct all kinds of tech-related scams? 

What about email? Ah, now this is also a juicy scamming avenue. SPAM is king among scammers looking for an easy buck. And SPAM is profitable, believe it or not. It's a million dollar industry, which is why you keep getting SPAM in your inbox. People do it because it works, simply put. But what makes SPAM so gosh-darn effective? Perhaps it's the ease with which scammers make the email look legitimate or it's the ease with which scammers can send millions of messages to millions of people. By casting a wide net, they are sure to nab at least a few suckers.  

Social media is yet another avenue scamsters just love to employ. Facebook is a breeding ground for scammers who spam content and fraudulent ads in order to make a quick buck off of unwitting victims. Just the other day, someone impersonated one of my family's Facebook friends. They stole pictures, posts, and information off of the real profile and made their own fake profile with that data. Quite clever, and very effective. Anyway, this person attempted to get us signed up for some worker's compensation scam using the fraudulent profile. Fortunately, my family isn't stupid so they saw right through it. Facebook was vigilant and shut down the profile, hopefully before anyone got scammed. 

Yes, 'tis the season for scamming. And technology makes scams all the more common and potent. Fortunately, technology is double-edged. It has given us safe-guards to protect against scammers. SPAM filters come quickly to mind. AdBlockers are another safe-guard. But we must remain vigilant. We live in interesting times. In the world of con men, technology can either be our friend or our enemy. Let's endeavor to make it a strong friend. 

Be safe and happy computing!

A Word to the Outcast on the Fringe

A word to the Outcast
The solitary figure on the fringe
Unadorned and forgotten
Spiteful of the masses, of the common man
They have something you don't or
Is it the other way around?

The masses laugh at you
They believe you are a creep, a loner, and a fool
They can't imagine being you,
Or calling you "friend"
Yet, they can't begin to imagine what you've seen,
What you know,
And what you are 

You live life on your own terms
You've disobeyed the mandated script
You've tasted a side of life most can't stomach
You drink deep at poisonous fountains,
only to discover the gold coins at the bottom
Your actions are intimate and sincere
You dance with the forbidden and the ugly
You've paid prices that would bankrupt most others
You create the waves others only ride

You know a freedom the common man thinks only exists in movies, books, and fantasy

Let them laugh, it's all they can do

Let them sneer, they waste their time

Let them become angry, it's how they cope with the fact that

You live a life they are afraid to live
You have tasted fruits they were taught were poisonous
You have looked upon forbidden things and appreciated
A life most don't know exist

And you are not alone in this world
While outcasts are on the fringe, the fringe grows daily
While before distance kept the outcasts apart
Networks bring them together, to be outcasts together
From one outcast to another, to call one another "family"
The outcasts face the world together
And within the outcast's group, the common man is the outsider

Everyone's becoming a Programmer?

Seriously, what's with this push for everyone to become programmers? Is this the next big job trend? A couple years ago it was nursing and before that it was accounting and before that it was business. But at least those trends kind of made sense. These days, colleges are pimping their programming classes like no other. I guess computing in general is the next big job trend, so people figure that "hey, programming is related to computing! I bet it will be a very lucrative field of study. If it wasn't lucrative, why would every college is a compsci professor be promoting it like it's going out of style?" Yeah, I guess. And, hell, don't get me started on all those "Learn Python in 7 days" courses that cost $7,000. They better be beaming that information into my head and have a job set up for me in Caribbean at that outrageous price.

But the push does make a little sense, even if it does seem to come out of no where. Computing is one of those fields of work that just seems to grow nonstop. Everything getting computerized, so we'll need technicians to maintain the infrastructure and designers to design the next big gadget and compsci professionals to figure out why gmail is running like crap. But that doesn't justify the size of this push. I haven't seen colleges push an education curriculum like programming in...ever. And if there's one thing I've learned from that economics class I took five years ago, all these future programmers are really going to lower the wages of your average programmer. Competition will be immense. As if the life of a code monkey weren't hard enough, now there's going to be a flood of them filling the market and competing for the low-rung programming jobs. 

I guess this is good news if you are an established, or startup, business owner who needs programmers. They can now justify paying their programmers dirt-cheap wages because there will always be another programmer to fill the role. If you want to get conspiratorial, I've heard claims that Silicon Valley is behind this push in order to drop programmer wages in the future. All speculation, but it does make you go "Hmm...". Barring conspiracy theories, this new influx of programmers will certainly make the field less lucrative. Whatever is a programmer to do? 

I'm no life coach and I'm certainly no career coach, so don't take what I say seriously. But, if you were to ask my opinion, I recommend that programmers back-up their programming degree with other computing-related degrees like networking, security, computer science, and database management. Gotta make yourself standout somehow. 

But what does this influx of programmers mean for our society? I think we're in for some exciting times. With all these new programmers on the market, who knows what we'll see in the next few years in terms of new technology. All it would take is one rather ingenious person to gather all of the excess programmers and do something great with them. Of course the programmers would go along with the deal, there isn't a whole lot of other work for them. I can see someone getting very rich off this entire trend, if only the colleges and independent courses cashing in on the trend. 

We may also be in for a shift in thinking. Remember that article I once wrote? Sure you do, you read it didn't you? Of course you did. Anyway, programmers think differently than most people. Programmers tend to frequently use logic and, therefore, have brains accustomed to using logic. Does the incoming flux of programmers mean a more logical population? Will the scales tip to favor the logical man over the emotional man? That has yet to be seen. But, as of right now, both men tend to be welcomed by different parts of our society and I figure it will be that way for a long, long time. However, it does seem the logical man is becoming more valued within our society. Given our ever advancing technology, it isn't hard to see why a premium is being put on logical people (of course this will all, eventually, balance out with all these damned new programmers entering the market). And what happens when a population becomes more logical? Do standards of living increase? Is society improved? I would like to think so, and it would seem so to a reasonable person, but that is yet to be seen. 

Whatever the future holds for us, one thing is certain. The markets are going to get hit with tons of programmers. What eventually comes of that is anyone's guess. The best we can do now is speculate. And speculation is good fun. 

It’s the Future and there are no Hover Boards: Where did it all go so Wrong?

There was once a running joke on Facebook that suggested we would have hover boards by the date October 21, 2015. That date wasn't arbitrary. Well, it wasn't completely arbitrary. In the movie, Back to the Future II, Marty McFly is taken to the future in order to right some future wrong. I won’t get into it here for fear of spoiling the movie for people who haven’t seen it yet. If you haven’t seen the movie, you should probably take some time out of your busy schedule to watch it. It’s a cult classic at this point. Anyway, at the movie’s date of October 21, 2015, there are hover boards. The Facebook joke suggested that we should have hover boards by Oct. 21, 2015. It’s one of those jokes that’s only funny when its tacked onto an image. I think the reason this joke is funny is that it pokes-fun at our expectations of the future. The movie was made back in 1989 and they had some pretty grand expectations of the future. Of course, grand expectations of the future are not new. Every age has some fantastic interpretations of the far-off future. Usually these interpretations are reflective of the age itself. In Back to the Future II, the presented future looked very...80s-like in its fashion and culture. It was basically the 80's with more advanced tech, and hover boards. Speaking of grand expectations, look at our favorite bit of retro-futurism: cyberpunk fiction. Most of the stuff in cyberpunk fiction never came to pass in the expected period. And we currently have some technology that far surpasses cyberpunk's predictions.  

But why didn't we get hover boards by October 21, 2015? It isn't like movies lie or anything. My parents once believed we would have flying cars by the year 2000, but that idea never really took off. The idea just isn't practical with our current technology. People like the believe future tech is closer than it actually is. Humanity misjudges humanity's technological progress (or rather the direction of that progress), and then everyone gets disappointed when the cool, new, envisioned tech never becomes a reality. 

But the future isn't all that technologically deficient. Today we have smartphones and tablets. My memory of Back to the Future II may be hazy, but I'm pretty sure they were still using Walkmans in the movie. Heh, using a Walkman while riding a hover board, how retro-futuristic can you get? That brings me to my next point.

While people's expectations of the future may be far-fetched, the future does bring some things that people don't expect. In the 1930s, people believed we would have flying cars by the year 1970. The flying cars never materialized, but what did materialize was something few people thought could exist: a network that would span the globe and allow people to trade information in the fraction of a second, the internet. The future brought something few people imagined could exist and it is still one of humanity's greatest achievement. What will the future blind side us with next? 

So we may not have hover boards, but we do have a bunch of other cool, useful stuff that the writers of Back to the Future didn't foresee. The future will continue to surprise us with plenty of cool and exciting things. And, perhaps, we shouldn't be the passive recipients of all that cool junk. Maybe we should go out there and make it happen. I think that is the cyberpunk way. Well, that and raiding mega corps, but let's just do one thing at a time.

FBI Refuses to Hire Pot-Smoking Hackers

In one of the funniest articles I've read in a while, FBI director James Comey laments the current hiring situation for the FBI. As most people know, the U.S. government isn't the friendliest when it comes to pot-smokers. Marijuana has been illegal in most states since the 1930's, and only a few states where it is completely legal to possess and ingest. While many states allow for consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and other states on the verge of completely decriminalizing the drug, the U.S. government is still beholden to its old views on marijuana. Especially when it comes to hiring U.S. government agents. 

Therein lies Comey's trouble. The U.S. government has admitted that it isn't the best when it comes to computer security, therefore, the FBI is seeking to hire new blood in order to better combat cyber criminals. Here's the rub. Most of the young, talented hackers out there smoke pot, or they have smoked pot within the last three years. Which means they are barred from becoming the super-hacker crime fighters the FBI so desperately needs right now. 

So, what will Comey do? Will he relax the hiring standards for new recruits or will he stick to tradition and hope to fight off some of the smartest hackers on the planet with his current staff? Though Comey has stated that he is "dead-set against using marijuana", his personal feelings (if those really are his personal feelings) won't mean a damn thing if the U.S. government loses critical information to skilled cyber criminals. I believe the FBI has realized this as they are still considering this issue and they are encouraging stoners to still apply. Additionally, given that many states are considering decriminalizing the drug, it seems the entire country is headed toward the eventual legalization of marijuana. Considering this, the FBI would be especially foolish to refuse hiring skilled hackers in honor of traditional laws that are quickly going out the window. 

Looks like the pot-smoking hackers still have a chance at becoming feds. They need the money anyway to pay for their habit. Quality marijuana isn't cheap. If the feds do relax their hiring standards, it will be a win-win situation: the feds get their skilled hackers and the skilled hackers get lucrative jobs, which they can use to finance their drug habit. There is a right answer to this issue and I believe Comey will make the right choice.