WEEK12 Hackerdom Ideals

 What society defines to be a hacker is a distorted version of its  original definition. While the definitions from inside the hackerdom have a rather social, goodhearted and innovative element, the non-IT society sees hackers as threats to their personal information. In his text “Hacker Ethic” the philosopher Pekka Himanen proposes seven ideals that hackers should abide.

The ideals, although mentioning ethics at several points, do not define a clear limit, which I would expect to exist in a text defining the hackerdom. The ideals; passion and freedom, highlight the creativeness that should drive a hacker, which I agree with. Generally I agree that whatever one does should be pushing oneself, motivating to explore the depth of the field, however if that means violating other legal and ethical codes, that would be too much freedom. The original definition of a hacker, a passionate IT expert, does not imply an unethical use of its skills, however a hacker by the societally known definition, an IT expert that breaks security barriers, is also a passionate IT expert, therefore within the seven ideals there should be a mention of certain ethics. It is however complicated to incorporate ethics that would limit aspects of the digital world, whilst one of the ideals is “freedom”. However, the lack of criminal intent should be phrased within the definition, to avoid misinterpretation.

Another ideal is the (hacker) money ethics. Justifying a capitalistic approach of accumulating money as a resource, however not as the final goal. Highlighting the success of free licenses in the development of the information era, which would be at a different stage would certain individuals not have followed the (hacker) money ethic. I think this is possibly the most important ideal. Whilst acknowledging that the hackers must live off something, therefore requiring some money, or that to develop certain technologies funds are needed, it highlights that making money should not be the goal of a hacker. In the capitalistic society we live in and the economical potential of technology, being enticed by the taste of money and riches can happen quickly, leading to more proprietary software and less digital freedom. Furthermore, in connection with (hacker) network ethic and freedom, keeping a non-economical approach is important also to guarantee freedom to others in the hacker community. Himanen himself reiterates the economical aspect in his definition of “caring”, in my opinion implying that caring is about the freedom of the information society.

              Although preserving and expanding freedom in the digital world is important, I do believe that certain set structures, meaning proprietary software, need to exist to avoid a digital anarchy. If we were to only live by these seven ideals, in the information society, the lack of rigid structures could pose a threat to non-IT experts or IT-experts that do not considers themselves part of the hackerdom.