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.