Wanted: A Hackers' Charter

Emmanuel Goldstein

Americans have a reputation for being fiercely protective of their liberties. It is what makes their country so different from all the rest, or so they believe. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right of privacy - fundamental premises that form the foundation of their society. Yet, as the century moves to its close, there is ample evidence to suggest that these freedoms are becoming more theoretical than actual.

Much of this is a result of the advance of technology. The same rules of liberty do not apply in the cybernetic world. Private files are far more easily accessible to unauthorised eyes when they are stored on computer; electronic publications are not afforded the same protections as ‘real’ publications; and sending someone electronic mail by no means guarantees the same level of privacy as dropping mail into a mailbox.
American society has evolved to the point where it believes in storing everything about itself on computer; birth records, death records, credit reports, telephone bills, hospital data, and so on. While all these computers are not yet trading information, it is remarkable easy to obtain a detailed profile of someone in a very short time by glancing at key files.

A growing number of people have a legal right to access this personal information. Others do not have the right but do have the knowledge and the motivation. Others still are simply out to explore the systems themselves. Commonly known as computer hackers, the last are often portrayed as the biggest threat to privacy. Recently, three hackers in Atlanta were sent to prison simply for gaining access to a computer system, the equivalent of opening the drawer of a filing cabinet.

Similar inequities are present in publishing. While most magazines and newspapers are able to operate freely under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which protects freedom of the press, electronic publications are not included. In 1990, an electronic magazine called Phrack was shut down, its list of subscribers seized, and its editor put on trial for publishing an article that was alleged to contain proprietary telephone company information. The claim was eventually proven to be unsubstantiated but not until after the magazine had been forced to stop publication. The same moves against a printed magazine or newspaper would have been difficult, if not impossible. Public and press would both have been outraged at the attempt.

In this particular case, the government was able to monitor the electronic mail going to and from the magazine by gaining access to a computer that acted as a step in the mailing process. This is tantamount to opening every letter going to and from a location and then resealing the envelopes. Here the agents merely had to copy each message as it passed by, unthinkable in the case of conventional mail.

Computer bulletin board systems form what is perhaps the most valuable form of free speech we have today. Anybody with a computer can call, speak their mind on a variety of issues, communicate privately with other users, and if he/she chooses, remain anonymous. There can be no judgement based on personal appearance or the sound of a voice: the words tell the whole story and everyone starts out equal. Yet the authorities frequently look on the bulletin boards as criminal tools, as though all kinds of illicit behaviour could be festering within private and anonymous communications It is not unusual for a computer bulletin board to be seized by the authorities to investigate the contents of private electronic mail. When this happens, all private mail within the system is perused.

It is sad and ominous that technology is allowing those in power to keep an eye on people surreptitiously, conveniently,and thoroughly. Those who discover how the system works are themselves targeted as threats to society. Discouraged from learning the technicalities of massive computer systems, the public believes what it is told.

Americans assume their way of life is incorruptible: an Orwellian scenario could never unfold, no matter how much information is gathered on the public. This may be a valid assumption, but even if the political system is wholly benevolent, can it be guaranteed for all time? This power of scrutiny in the hands of a future regime that did not value human life as highly as at present, or in the hands of a totalitarian society, an Adolf Hitler, is all too easy to imagine.

There are two sides to every revolution. After the initial glory comes the purge and the reign of terror. The computer revolution, while different in kind, is not immune.

Emmanuel Goldstein is editor of 2600, The Hacker Quarterly, published in the USA, and a freelance writer and broadcaster.

(CX5050)

Subject Headings

• Access to Personal Information
• Computer Users
• Computers
• Hackers
• Privacy

Donate or Volunteer