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

[erik swedberg]

your use of the word hacker to describe people who do stuff with electronics and 
software is itself a co-opting of the term that used to have to do with breaking 
into systems (for fun, learning, or malice) and phreaking - the connotation 
includes a healthy dose of subversion - think war games, or guys in trench coats 
meeting in shopping mall food courts with well-worn vinge and brunner paperbacks 
in their pockets.

it sometimes befuddles me that lots of people seem to have forgotten the 
history. think of all the awesome scientists and engineers who worked on 
electronics and software from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s - sweet dudes with 
beards (and all these folks: 
http://www.luckham.org/LHL.Bell%20Labs%20Days.html): bell labs, the guys who 
wrote unix and its variants, the programmers for the atari 2600 games, woz, ham 
radio operators, the dudes who invented the transistor 
(http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestone_1947b.html), the guys who made the 
first video games using oscilloscopes - none of these folks were then called 
hackers, whereas now they would all qualify under our current definition.

and the word is changing again, to be more inclusive of those not engaged in the 
dark arts. for the modern people who want a badge to be proud of their 
hard-earned electronics and computer skills, i propose a new word: hobbyist.





-erik



________________________________
From: Evan Bangham <ebangham at gmail.com>
To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachel at mediumreality.com>
Cc: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 1:53:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] My Hair Is On Fire - Current events 
that are shaping your rights as we speak

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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110316/77cd9903/attachment-0003.html>