Kent Pitman

Kent Pitman
Location
New England, USA
Title
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Bio
I've been using the net in various roles—technical, social, and political—for the last 30 years. I'm disappointed that most forums don't pay for good writing and I'm ever in search of forums that do. (I've not seen any Tippem money, that's for sure.) And I worry some that our posting here for free could one day put paid writers in Closed Salon out of work. See my personal home page for more about me.

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
NOVEMBER 16, 2008 2:46PM

Hacking, before the Internet

Rate: 14 Flag

The term hack has existed for quite a long time in various forms. MIT uses the term to describe playful pranks some members of the community have played. These tricks are intended as benign although they have sometimes played out in unexpected ways. If you want some samples, you can find summaries around the net (for example, click here) or you can see the movie Real Genius, which is a lot more true to life in many respects than you might imagine.

When I arrived on the MIT computer scene in the latter part of the 1970's, the term “hack” had taken on an even more generic meaning than this prank sense. For all intents and purposes, a “hack” was simply a synonym for “do”, often with a sense of cleverness or inventiveness, though at MIT that aspect was so taken for granted that it was rarely spoken. Not surprisingly at an engineering school, it was all about doing things, leading someone later on to coin the phrase “hackito ergo sum”—that is, presumably, “I hack [or do], therefore I am.”

Note: The New Hacker's Dictionary will describe the meaning of the term slightly differently, but not in what I think is a material way. Even so, since I lived through the era, I'm exercising my right to describe things as I perceived them directly and not to be burdened by references written by others.

In that era, which was still that of an older, non-public network called the ARPANET that preceded the public Internet, someone might routinely be heard to ask, as a simple greeting and with no intent to challenge, “what are you hacking?” It meant, literally, “what are you doing?” but really in a more figurative and non-confrontational way, as if the speaker had asked just “what's up?”

A hacker, then, was just someone capable of doing something, and the term was often used with great reverence as in a doer of great deeds. Our online profiles on one of the computers contained the fill-in-the-blank “Hacking task-name for supervisor” where you would fill in the task-name and the supervisor, where mine might have said “Hacking the time/space continuum for the future of mankind.” (We weren't always very good about putting in actual supervisor names.)

Of course, as these things go, the computer community got bigger and not all deeds done (not all hacks hacked) were good. After a while, there were people doing bad things, too. I was around when this happened generally, but did not witness whatever event it was that caused the sudden shift of the use of the name. I've only managed to piece together what I think must have happened.

I imagine that one day someone finally did something bad with computers, and someone from outside the community asked who had done it, my bet is that a terminological confusion resulted from someone responding “probably one of those hackers,” leading the listener to believe that the purpose of being a hacker was to do something destructive, perhaps with a machete, rather than that the purpose of being a a hacker was merely to do things and that some things one might do are good and some things one might do are bad.

I do know that it was around the time of the movie Wargames and that I was working at the MIT AI Lab as a programmer. I had gone out for a walk around Boston, as I often did in the afternoons then. I returned to the lab and a bunch of people rallied around me and said, “Kent, Kent, Ted Koppel called. He wants to interview a hacker about the movie Wargames. We said they should talk to you.” (To this day, I don't know why in such a community of much more talented folks than I, they picked me, especially since I wasn't to be found, but so it goes.) I tried to call back, but we couldn't get them on the phone. I later figured out they'd gotten someone from Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) and so didn't need me any more. Ah, the chance for fame can be so fleeting.

But it was just as well because they were apparently operating under this new meaning of “hacker” and I would have been totally thrown by the questions they were asking, which seemed to presuppose that if I was a self-identified hacker, I was the sort who'd be breaking into computers or something. That wasn't what hackers I'd known did, and I didn't either. We had things to build. So they interviewed this guy from CMU. It was someone I knew of, I just don't now recall his name.

This is how we came to the belief they don't do those things live, because we saw he was logged in to his console in the interview and we all quickly scrambled during the broadcast (hackers came out at night, so we were all watching from the Lab) to try to send him a message (the equivalent of an instant message) hoping it would come out on his screen while he was on the air. But it didn't. Another chance at fame lost.

Fortunately for ABC News, this person seemed to know the new meaning of “hacker” and gave them a competent interview. But we were all saddened at the tarnishing such an important word had taken. It was part of our daily vocabulary and veritably wrenched from us for this stupid use.

There was an attempt by a number of hackers to get the media to use the term “crackers” instead, but it failed. And the term was essentially lost. From time to time, you'll still see someone of my generation refer to themselves as a “hacker (original meaning)” in some wistful attempt to reclaim the memory of a time when hacking was just doing.

The moniker “netsettler” that I use in some discussion forums (such as Slashdot) harkens to that era. I often feel an empathy, even if the experience is only metaphorically equivalent, with the displacement Native Americans must have felt when the modern world moved in and took their land. The net, and indeed the whole world, was such a different place before it was the Internet. Most people see the arrival of the Internet as the beginning of something, but some of us saw it also as the ending of something.


If you valued this post, please "rate" it.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
This is fascinating, Kent, even if I knew the general outlines of the hacker culture already, from the hackers' dictionary. I was on the fringes of the AI culture in the mid 1980s (in industry, working for a defense contractor, but on Lisp machines), which seems to have overlapped a good bit with hacker culture. By the time I dove into the academic side of AI, though, I think I'd missed that historical period and was too far away (all the way across the state of Massachusetts) for it to be a strong influence.
Thanks, Rob. In the parlance of the day, I used to hack Lisp Machines, too. So you can't have been that culturally far afield. Perhaps just missing this or that item of terminology.

It's one reason that when I was Project Editor for the American National Standard for Common Lisp (ANSI CL), I insisted on a huge glossary of common terminology (the glossary for that large document it itself about 60 pages printed, if I recall), because some bonds between programmers of Lisp are technical (the things we can program) but some are terminological (the ways we talk about things). I think it important that the design of technical topics be devised not only for ease of implementation but also for the ease of people discussing them, especially in settings where they don't have access to a computer or whiteboard. For example, we used to talk about the necessity of being able to scrawl notes to one another easily on napkins or to speak to one another over tea while out for Chinese food (something we did an enormous lot of) or even when chatting in online bulletin board systems (like usenet) where people came from different cultures and needed common frames of references for discussion.
And your last comment is just as interesting as the main post (now an Editor's Pick) for me. That is, there are lots of factors that promote or hinder collaborative efforts (a team programming project, the formation of an online community, whatever), and some of them are quite subtle. A shared vocabulary made explicit in a glossary isn't something that immediately comes to mind (for me), though after the fact it's much easier to see how it could be critical. You're probably well aware of the work going on at MIT on computer support for collaboration way back when. (Was that Mark Stefik's stuff?) In the student team projects that I nominally oversee, even something as simple as being able to arrange for convenient meeting times can make or break a project.
Interesting post. I had no idea that there was a good meaning to the word "hacker". Thanks for informing us.
Sweet piece on an arcane world. Love it.
I've been around long enough, but on a different platform. I never experienced the Arpanet. I had thought hackers were just people who solved problems (i.e., coded) by the seat of their pants, instead of implementing elegant, well-thought-out designs (the term "design patterns" had not yet been coined). Later, I understood the hacker/cracker distinction, and used it in my own communications.

Nice informative post.
Hence the expression, "hacking around," from the time I was a teenager...never having a real clue to the extensive meaning expanded on here. Wow, very cerebral for a hack like me! Very interesting.
Fun post. Thanks, Kent, for the interesting peek into the MIT community back then. When WARGAMES was released in ’83(?), I was making the transition from film school to film industry. And I’d always had an interest in technology – so seeing what those two Yalies, Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes had concocted was pretty interesting to me. (They wrote the oscar nominated original screenplay). As you know firsthand, a big part of that film’s commercial success was due to how it presented the new world, unfamiliar to most, that technology had opened up. So I’m curious, though you missed your chance to give the scoop to Ted Koppel (his loss, I’m sure!), do you recall what your group thought of the movie at the time?
Hi, David. Interesting question. Many were simply annoyed that none of the technology in the movie was correct. There are some serious errors, including the blurring of names and passwords and at one point there is a place where the computer modem is off-hook but still managing to hold a connection and get data from the mainframe to the terminal. Even so, though, these were also formative times for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which came into being in 1981 and was something many of us took quite seriously because this was also the time of Reagan's Star Wars / SDI system. I didn't join CPSR in 1981, I don't think, but probably had joined by the time of this movie (1983). The reality of the risks of accidental automated launch seemed to me and certain others a very material risk, and a matter enough worth getting across that we forgave all the technical inaccuracies, just thankful that they correctly portrayed the social and ethical scenario correctly. So it would have depended a lot who you talked to as to what answer you got. I don't recall what was said on Nightline, but I'm betting it mostly focused on the technical capabilities of hackers and not on the movie's key points, which probably saddened me. I don't know an easy way to dredge back into the record of TV shows of the era and find out. I have a few on tape, but not that one. I think I bought my first VCR in about 1984 or thereabouts. Recording TV for the purpose of saving it was not really common, at least for me, for quite some time after that.
I remember when War Games came out how people said the premise was stupid. Yeah, how prophetic those people were. It's not so far off point. Some of the most vaunted and famous hackers are very young.

Interesting view from the inside.
rated
Regarding the (im)plausibility, click here for a page of reading that will probably shock anyone who's a disbeliever that these issues were real.
An awesome story. I remember showing a photograph of the timeshare terminal I used in high school (in the 1970s) to my children and explaining to them that this was the interface for the computer and having them scoff loudly and laugh at me for trying to convince them that my first interaction with a computer could just be a keyboard on a stand.

And by the way, Ted Koppel missed a golden opportunity when he managed to circumvent interviewing you!
Kent, didn't 60 Minutes or one of the TV "news" shows do an interview with him after the Cold War regarding this? I recall seeing something about this after the fact. It was the closest call since the Cuban Missile Crisis to total annihilation. Great addition to the post.
They might have, Greg. It was a big deal.