Reading02

To remind myself, the hacker ethic is: Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative, all information should be free, Mistrust authority—promote decentralization hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position,You can create art and beauty on a computer, and Computers can change your life for the better. (from Prof. Bui's slides, thank you!)

While reading I was thinking about the idea of intention vs reality. On paper, ideas and solutions sound great, but do they transfer over when put into practice?

There was a distinct difference between the hardware hackers from California and the True hackers from MIT: a willingness to share information with everyone, not just those within their circle. I agree with the group and their mission to help the community and dissipate the aura of elitism. I feel as though people should be exposed to hacking and computers if they choose, however, it is not something that should be shoved down one’s throat or locked away forever. One thing both groups of hackers had was passion, so it could be that random people on the street could also share that same passion. The book talked about reaching out to teach children and the community to host educational resources regarding new technology. After MITS began to distribute their computer kits, people were allowed to indirectly choose whether the hacker ethic was something they wanted to subscribe to because, upon retrieval of these computer kits, they had to build it themselves (very hands-on) and learn how to work it. If they liked it, then they kept it, but if they didn’t, then they could get their money back.

In my opinion, going around to people to explain new concepts and ideas should not be seen as something negative. Learning and many other principles of the hacker ethic are beneficial. However, while their intent can be to inform and learn, the reality can be that they take the information taught to them, and do bad things with it. In the homebrewers club, some people were trying to learn for the sake of making a bunch of money, but others were genuinely interested for the sake of discovery. Maybe I am too optimistic, but just as people can do bad with technology, they can also fix it and do good with it. 

People are going to do whatever they want regardless, so people will compromise and take what they want out of the hacker ethic. In my opinion, compromising is worth having a larger impact on the world because I hope that the impact will be positive. I do not agree with everything regarding the hacker ethic but one thing that I cannot deny is that it promotes learning and indirectly creativity. All of these hackers started with curiosity, they tinkered and helped build machines without it being done before. Yes, there were models and ideas but there had never been a computer like the Altair before the Altair. The hacker ethic also pushed for unity. The book talked about the importance of unity in the context of making impossible things possible. The world is far from perfect I could conjure up a list of problems that society feels are impossible and unsolvable. The book talks about the power the hacker ethic has by highlighting the hands-on, unity, and lack of doubt aspects brought to the table. Furthermore, this power can make the impossible possible. We should spread the hacker ethic for the common good. The hacker ethic is not solely for the purpose of computers and hacking, but it can also be used for non-technical issues. Maybe by spreading the hacker ethic, we can find solutions to our many problems including a way to ensure our intention and reality agree. People are going to do what they want, but what is the hurt in making the default thinking: the Hacker Ethic?