[Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] My Hair Is On Fire - Current events that are shaping your rights as we speak

Wed Mar 16 18:00:49 UTC 2011

Evan,

Thanks so much for your insight. I think discussions like this are
good for the whole group.

I have generally personally defined "hacking" as "using something in a
way it wasn't intended." Incidentally, this definition encompasses the
word "hacker" itself.

Regarding political involvement, I think it's fair to say that once
we've created a tool, be it a word, machine, or methodology, it will
have uses beyond what we created it for. Further, others will find
purposes for it that we never imagined, and not always for ends with
which we agree.

The interesting part of this is that if words are tools (and they are,
they are tools of communication), then everything which is composed of
words is hackable-- including computer code, including books, and
including law. For example, there are serious legal hacks going on in
Wisconsin right now. I'm pretty upset with how the GOP is behaving,
but I have to admit they are pulling some creative maneuvers.

The reason I try to define it so open-ended is because I constantly
run into people who have personality traits similar to those of people
in the computer community who I'd call "hackers", but they don't know
much about computers. And I think it's unfair to create a barrier so
that people who lived before we *had* electronic computers aren't able
to be called hackers. If what they do has the same general principle
or philosophy, but we didn't have a word for it yet, does that mean
the word does not describe their actions?

One detail I try to remember is that the meaning a word has is the
meaning we give it. There is a set of meanings we all ascribe to the
term "hacker" right now. Perhaps we'll have a different word in 50
years. I feel it's less important to determine whether something
matches a word, and more important to see if it matches the underlying
ideas behind that word.

aestetix

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Evan Bangham <ebangham at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm glad you asked. I'm afraid that I've done some thinking and I'm going to
> be back peddling from some of my previous statements.
>
> Allow me to posit, if I may, that Noisebridge is a community that is made up
> of both makers and hackers.
>
> Lets define hacking using these words using some of the verbiage we've
> previously laid out in the thread.
>
> Hacking:
> "To attempt to solve a problem by artfully applying skills and tools in or
> closely related to the areas of computer programing or circuit design
> without reference to a plan or instructions." I don't think many would argue
> that it was people in software that started using the word in relation to
> writing software before it started to linguistically crawl its way into
> other circles.
>
> Maker:
>  If you use this same definition as hacker and remove the reference to
> computer programming and circuits you have the word 'maker'. Makers a la
> Make magazine, make stuff using tools in a skillful manor without reference
> to instructions much as hackers do. The only difference is that making is
> not using code or circuits and is thus not considered hacking. Making can
> involve anything from sewing and crafts to designing and building bicycles.
>
> By my definition of the words hacking and making, the building of robots for
> instance, is not hacking, but is in fact, a combination of making and
> hacking. Those that build robots could be either makers or hackers, or both.
> Building various components of a robot could, if involving software and
> electronics be considered hacking. For example, if I'm writing a quick and
> dirty piece of software to enable the robot to track some object using a
> camera, I'm hacking. If I'm building a robot arm using a metal shop, I'm no
> longer hacking, I'm making.
>
> In consideration of our robot example, one could come to the conclusion that
> it's natural for the definition of hacking to be intertwined with things
> that have historically, not been considered hacking. Clearly this fact does
> not suddenly make the words synonymous just because the skills are used in
> concert with each other. Any broadening of the definition of hacking to
> suddenly include all forms of making are simply an appeal to some sort of
> linguistic relativism.
>
> My motives for starting this discussion is that we hackers have spent time
> and sacrifice learning our craft. All those nights in front of the keyboard,
> staring at the glowing screen or heads buried in books, learning gate logic
> and object oriented design patterns take their toll on the body and spirit.
> From society at large we are in some cases scorned and alienated.  Given
> these sacrifices, we wear the our badge of hacker with pride, that is pride
> in our ability to make (or break) cool shit with electronics and software as
> our reward.
>
> Now we have a situation where non hacker activists see that we apply our
> specially honed skills in technology evermore in the capacity to fight
> against government and corporation's attacks on our freedoms. They see that
> because we are outcasts that we are beholden to no one but our selves and
> are own free ideas. This leads the non hacker activists to think "hey man,
> that's hip, thats cool, these people fight the power in such a creative and
> awesome way!" "I want in on that piece of pie and become an individualist
> hacker like those other guys!" so they appropriate our word and our
> institutions for their own means to help cheerlead and message for their own
> non hacking related ideas and groups.
>
> Hackers and makers love political involvement and we have groups like the
> EFF doing our bidding, so it makes sense to have groups inside noisebridge
> that specialize in politicking(for lack of a better word).  Its when people
> start calling the act civic engagement hacking that a line has been crossed.
> Its at this point that the word has been misappropriated and the effect of
> this miss appropriation of the word hacker, is to minimize the importance of
> the skills that we sacrificed our time and sanity for.
>
> This swindling of our brand disempowers us and our community. In my
> conversation with various hackers in noisebridge (Cobalt being one of them)
> I've been told that noisebridge's failure to dedicate itself to hackers and
> that its all inclusiveness, is limiting their involvement at noisebridge.
> I'm not in complete agreement with that view, but when I'm hearing hackers
> aren't willing to come to noisebridge to start cool projects because people
> with the necessary skills to help them do so aren't available at
> noisebridge, partially due to non hackers and non makers infringing upon the
> space, making hackers feel unwelcome. This disappoints me greatly.
>
> Noisebridge is a community of makers and hackers, but they are not one and
> the same. Noisebridge embraces makers and hackers equally and rightfully so
> because both are a means to making cool shit that requires a wide range of
> skills to produce. Makers can directly help hackers and vice versa. Hackers
> need food to survive just like anyone else, lets have some cooking classes,
> both hackers and makers benefit, great! Hackers like beer, let's make some
> beer, awesome! Makers like making stuff out of wood and metal, hackers like
> coding and circuits, lets make some robots.
>
> Its when we have a breakdown of the partnership between makers and hackers
> that there is friction. Let's say some makers start hosting classes like
> "hacking yoga". Oh wait, that's already happening isn't it? It would be all
> good if there were coders or electrical engineering types in the class, but
> if I had to bet, it would be that they are very much in the minority in that
> class. Now that we've got makers, non makers and non hackers using the label
> of hacking for a yoga class that hackers do not benefit from, naturally this
> makes the hackers pissed off.
>
> This is why people who do code and circuits get pissed off when the see the
> word hacker used so loosely. I hope this lets people better understand the
> situation at a kind of sociological level at least. This is not just some
> pet peeve, it is very real and its effects can't be positive for the
> community at noisebridge.
>
>
> Fuck I should start a new project "Hacking Noisebridge"
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> <rachel at mediumreality.com> wrote:
>>
>> What does it mean, to hack?
>>
>> Is sewing hacking?  garments are a technological system we use to
>> regulate temperature.  I use a machine to modify them, creatively and in
>> contravention of established norms.
>>
>> If yes, what about other dimensional art forms?  i just used a table saw
>> on plywood, is that hacking?  Plywood is a highly engineered material.
>> Is this only hacking if i use it as a truss, so that its properties are
>> called on to distribute force?  what if i use it for its unnatural
>> flatness?
>>
>> if no, what about if i sew a circuitboard into a garment?  is it only
>> hacking when there is conductive thread in my machine?  what about when
>> i am sewing an insulation layer?
>>
>> Stop saying what isn't and define what is!
>>
>> On 3/14/2011 11:36 PM, Evan Bangham wrote:
>> > Politics|Cooking|Art|Writing != Hacking
>> >
>> > Yes, hacking can involve creativity and breaking established norms, but
>> > you
>> > can't just use it as a blanket term to describe doing anything that
>> > involves
>> > these things.
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > The slow food hacking thing I suppose enters the realm of hacking to a
>> > limited extent because it is using chemistry and the like, and I imagine
>> > is
>> > subversive in some way. I could say the same about photography and the
>> > like
>> > as long as it breaking the established norms of the medium and is
>> > harnessing
>> > technology in some way. Traditional fine art however, can never be
>> > 'hacked'
>> > because it is just so far removed from the realm of anything related to
>> > technology or science.
>> >
>> > I think in many senses I'm being far to accommodating for these expanded
>> > definitions of the term as it is though.
>> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>