Saturday, May 28, 2011

Hacking and Hacktivisim: For Advances in Technology and Society

"For hackers, technology is a playground." As Douglas Thomas explains in "Hacking As the Performance of Technology", there is a culture of people around which the use and management of technology is central. These are hackers; programming and and play become one and the same with the right knowledge of technology, computers, programming, etc.

There is an expectation that computers/machines be user friendly. But, this is subjective and relative. To whom are they user friendly? And who makes them to be that way? The user-computer interaction is a framework based on trends, expectations, programming, and the art of usability and interfacing. So, as computers are improved on, programmed more skillfully, and with higher data storage capacities, they are more trusted. Computers are a central component in most infrastructures, including those that are for the management of secure data. Their automation makes them ideal for use of managing massive data loads and speedy algorithmic computation.

So, what makes a computer behave? Well, their programs/programmers do. And the systems and interfaces people get used to get built into some kind of societal expectation. But... that doesn't mean its secure, does it? More code might be hard to break through, but that means more space for holes. It's a vast misconception; I recall watching TechTV (now G4) in 2006 and hearing reports that the Xbox 360 is "un-hackable". Well, that's nice and all, but 5 years later it's been hacked.

What does this mean exactly? It's been exploited; worked around. Computers are universal machines. Using math and logic, interfaces, and the right machinery, computation can be used to emulate or synthesized pretty much any other process or function. But computers are programmed for dedicated purposes, restricted access, and in the case of an Xbox 360, they're to play games and not play pirated games. And yet, mod chips (hardware add-ons for access changes and firmware patches) came about anyway. Heightened defenses may work, but they're not fool proof. Hackers know this. More code means more holes (a criticism I have for Microsoft's applications, stems from this problem).

So then, why hacking? Well, hacking stems beyond just the technologies and methods involved, and into the cultural purposes to which they're applied. There's an element of play and hobbyist fun. But the act of extending the use of a technology is an element too. There are those that like to create, and extending the capabilities of powerful technologies is a way to do this. An example is the OpenKinect project, allowing for the use of computer drivers for the personal computers to interface with the Xbox Kinect. The Kinect drivers/libraries could be tied into new applications that utilize the Kinect's motion detection capabilities. This was the fruit of a bounty put out by DIY/hobbyist electronics site Adafruit.com.

Then, there's hacktivism. Where hacker technique is used as a tool for activist agendas. Julian Assange (before he was THE Julian Assange, Wikileaks Founder) wrote a piece for leftist political online newsletter, Counterpunch in 2006. Assange recalls the potential first case of hacktivist activity, the "WANK worm", a software worm that made its way onto secure networks such as the Department of Energy, and NASA. 'WANK' = WORMS AGAINST NUCLEAR KILLERS. The worm would strike and change log-in screens to the prompt:
W O R M S A G A I N S T N U C L E A R K I L L E R S


_______________________________________________________________
\__ ____________ _____ ________ ____ ____ __
_____/
\ \ \ /\ / / / /\ \ | \ \ | | | | / / /
\ \ \ / \ / / / /__\ \ | |\ \ | | | |/ / /
\ \ \/ /\ \/ / / ______ \ | | \ \| | | |\ \ /
\_\ /__\ /____/ /______\ \____| |__\ | |____| |_\ \_/
\___________________________________________________/
\ /
\ Your System Has Been Officically WANKed /
\_____________________________________________/

You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.

During the cold war, nuclear fears and tensions flared between the US and the Soviet Union, and their respective allies. Australia was the site of US spy, warning, and nucelear submarine detection and communications bases, making it a nuclear target for the USSR (though Russia claimed it was not). In 1984, New Zealand declared itself a nuclear free territory, earning it scrutiny from the US as well as violations of the US's defense treaties and trade sanctions (among other subsequent issues). However, the WANK Worm source revealed that it had been designed to avoid New Zealand computers. The worm was applied specifically to machines implicated in the nuclear political issue.

Another example of hackers at work would be the recent breach on Sony and the PlayStation Network. Hackers were able to gain access to their PS3 systems, spoof developer systems, by which they got into the largely under protected PSN data. Account databases (containing usernames, passwords, emails, and most idiotically mothers' maiden names) were breached. A criticism was that said database was not encrypted as it could have (and should have) been. Even worse, the systems ran on slightly old software, something subpar for a large company like Sony. There's this idea of user access that Sony relied upon, because PS3 systems were secure. But one breach was all it took for a good sized privacy breach.

The result in this recent instance is clearly going to bring about an improvement in the PSN network structure and data format (if they're smart). But, this comes at an obvious cost to Sony. Sony reports an estimated $171 million in losses due to the hack (counting investments in improved security and projected future losses).

So, what is "bad" about hacking? The victimization or damage is all subjective. There is definitely a victimization arguable in most cases of typical hacking. But, that is a relative concept. Even in malicious attacks for personal gain, the counter-offense or strengthened defense means a greater technological power. Systems are upgraded and even if not hackable, they are more suitable and secure for their intended tasks. In good cases, benign hacks safety before things go bad. But not everyone is always so lucky. (Such as Sony now).

Julian Dibbell's article, "Viruses Are Good for You" argues the positive effects of malicious software. These intrusions or unexpected, exploitative uses of technology lead to a realization of the potential behind that technology. Part of the application of early viruses were for amateurs and academic to gauge the size of the internet and the scope of its users (just, without the permission of those users) with replicating worm programs. The replicating and evolving nature of malware has brought about a dedicated vast branch of computer business and research. It is with viruses and the internet that hackers and coders see potential for new forays in parallell computing. Sure, cloud computing is all the corporate rage now, but it came long after the spread of viruses that could grow, replicate, and share themselves over vast networks.

Dibbell writes: "It's hard to say which is really the more characteristically human trait - our drive toward complexity or our sometimes irrational fear of it." Perhaps it is stretch to delve into the nature of viruses and computer security from a software extent. But, I don't think so, as long as one considers the scientific/technological as well as social implications of hacking (and the importance of social circumstances). There are many ways, and reasons to make ones way into a computer and repurpose it or explore its potential. To quote Robert Morris, American former cryptographer and former NSA security specialist (whose son wrote the first internet worm): "The three golden rules to ensure computer security are: do not own a computer; do not power it on; and do not use it."


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)