“The Greatest Crime Syndicate since the Gambinos”: A Hacker Critique of Government, Law, and Law Enforcement

‘‘The Greatest Crime Syndicate since the Gambinos’’:A Hacker Critique of Government, Law, and

Law Enforcement

Kevin F. Steinmetz and Jurg Gerber

Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA

The current study presents a content analysis of articles, editorials, short stories, and book

reviews from the widely read and disseminated hacker zine 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, which were

examined for author discussions of governments, law, law enforcement, and government officials.

A total of five themes were uncovered. The first three themes are part of a hacker critique of

governments that describe these institutions as controlling, as incompetent or inadequate, and ascreators of collateral damage. Then, exceptions to the hacker critique are presented and their signifi-

cance assessed. Finally, solutions to the problems the authors discuss are presented.

INTRODUCTION

Hacking is a social phenomenon that has emerged in the rapidly advancing technological

period of late modernity. The public image of hacking has undergone massive change since

its inception in the late 1950s or early 1960s (Levy 1984). The image of the hacker has gradually

shifted away from the ‘‘golden age’’ where they were seen as ‘‘ardent (if quirky) programmers,

capable of brilliant, unorthodox feats of machine manipulation . . . [whose] dedication bordered

on fanaticism and their living habits bordered on the unsavory’’ (Nissenbaum 2004:196). Now,

hackers are often portrayed as ‘‘young men whose pathological addiction to the internet leads to

elaborate deceptions, obsessive quests for knowledge, and bold tournaments of sinister computer

break-ins’’ (Coleman and Golub 2008:256). This change in perceptions held by the public,

media, and government has been documented (Halbert 1997; Holt 2009; Skibell 2002; Thomas

2005). Yet, no scholarly scrutiny has been given to perceptions in the other direction—hackers

views on government, media, or the public. The current study seeks to begin addressing this

oversight in the literature by examining hacker perspectives on the government, law enforcement,

Received 23 January 2013; accepted 3 June 2013.

The authors thank the Graduate Standards and Admissions Committee for the fellowship opportunity that permitted

this research to take place. The authors also thank Melissa Petkovsek and Carl Root for their invaluable comments and

criticisms.

Address correspondence to Kevin F. Steinmetz, M.S., College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University,

P.O. Box 2296, 816 17th St., Huntsville, TX 77341-2296, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Deviant Behavior, 35: 243–261, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-9625 print / 1521-0456 online

DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2013.823344

and legislation through a content analysis of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, a publication created

and written by hackers, for hackers.1

Studies of hackers are relevant perhaps now more than ever. In recent history, hackers have

taken a position in the international spotlight with the actions of ‘‘hacktivist’’ (a term combining

‘‘hacker’’ and ‘‘activist’’) groups like Anonymous and LulzSec who have engaged in website

defacements, distributed denial of service attacks, and security breaches of various government,

security, or corporate organizations (Olson 2012). The public has been fascinated with the image

of the hacker since the subculture’s earliest appearances in popular culture, with perhaps the ear-

liest example being War Games in 1986 (Hollinger 1991; Skibell 2002). More recently, the U.S.

government has also expressed concern over hackers following the publication of government

documents by the whistleblowing organization, WikiLeaks (Steinmetz 2012). The controversy

involved various hackers and hacker groups (Leigh and Harding 2011). Finally, the U.S.

Defense Department has previously declared hackers to be a threat to national security saying

‘‘that there were 250,000 attacks against DoD systems in 1995 and the number is doubling each

year’’ (Skibell 2002:348; see also: Nichols et al. 2000).

While previous scholars have discussed or examined perceptions of hackers held by

mainstream society (including the public, media, and government officials) (Halbert 1997; Holt

2009; Skibell 2002; Thomas 2005), hacker scholars—particularly in criminal justice and

criminology—benefit from studying hacker perspectives in the opposite direction, specifically

regarding views on governments. Considering that hackers are under such scrutiny, understand-

ing hackers’ perspectives toward government may be beneficial toward a comprehensive

understanding of the tension between the two groups. There is also a glaring hole in the discourse

on the dynamic between the government and hackers. No one has yet to focus on hackers’

constructions of the government, which means that government perspectives and academic

discussions of those perspectives dominate the discourse on hacking, leaving hackers largely

omitted. This circumstance indicates a power differential in the social construction of hacking

that, according to Friere (1968=2006), may be conducive to an oppressive power differential

between governments and hackers. With little stake in the discourse surrounding hacking,

hackers’ perceptions may be unfairly omitted from the discussion of the problems that surround

the hacking community and the public alike (potentially problematic Internet legislation, security

vulnerabilities, etc.)—an issue that the current study seeks to begin rectifying.

Understanding hackers’ perspectives on government, law, and law enforcement are also

worthwhile because, if criminological subcultural theory holds true, understanding particular

ideas, values, and beliefs held by the greater hacking community may help to explain their beha-

vior. For example, subcultural theory dictates that ideas, which may develop from particular

social conditions and are culturally transmitted, are the drivers of behavior (Vold et al. 2002).

Considering that hackers are known for streaks of anti-authoritarianism, understanding their

perspectives of authority may lead to a better understanding of why they resist authority. In turn,

understanding these perspectives could also yield reflexive insights for those in positions of

authority—after all, what better way to understand the impact of authority than understand those

on the perceived receiving end?

1The authors of articles within 2600 are largely assumed to be hackers. It is entirely possible, however, that articles may

be written by those who may not necessarily be considered hackers either by themselves or the hacker community at large.

This analysis, to avoid confusing terminology and unnecessary ambiguity, treats all of the authors as if they are hackers.

244 K. F. STEINMETZ AND J. GERBER

Finally, a study concerning hackers’ perceptions of government, law, law enforcement, and

public officials is important because both the U.S. government and public seem to have a fas-

cination and fear of hackers (Halbert 1997; Holt 2009; Skibell 2002; Thomas 2005). Part of this

fear rests on the potential havoc hackers are thought to be capable of wreaking—particularly

regarding infrastructure. As demonstrated in this analysis, however, the hacker community

seems to be capable of appreciating the government despite being critical of it. As such, the

hacking community as a whole may pose less of a threat to governmental interests than

mythology would lead us to believe.

Before divulging the results of the current analysis, a brief overview of the academic literature

on hacking is provided. Included is a discussion of the academic literature examining hacking

and what is commonly referred to as ‘‘the hacker ethic.’’ Second, the data gathering and

grounded theory–based analytic approach adopted by this study are discussed. Third, the results

of the study are presented, focusing primarily on three themes that emerged from the analysis:

hackers’ perceptions of the government as controlling, as incompetent and inadequate, and caus-

ing collateral damage through its actions and policies. Exceptions to the hacker critique are

also briefly discussed, followed by solutions suggested by the authors in 2600: The HackerQuarterly.

EXPLORING HACKING

The academic literature on hacking is broad and diverse. Scholars have studied hacking as a sub-

culture, rich in shared cultural understandings and practices (Coleman 2010; Hollinger 1991; Holt

2009; Warnick 2004). Some researchers have examined the social construction of the image of

hackers, demonstrating how the image has changed over time and the process in which this

has occurred (Halbert 1997; Skibell 2002; Thomas 2005). Some focus has been given to the more

nefarious side of hacking: the creation of viruses and malware, computer intrusions, website defa-

cements, and identity theft (Furnell 2010; Higgins 2010; Jordan and Taylor 1998; Nichols et al.

2000; Woo et al. 2004). There have been scholars who have explored the practices of hackti-

vism—the use of computer programming skills as a means of political dissent (McKenzie

1999; Meikle 2002; Taylor 2005; Van Laer and Van Aelst 2010). Turgeman-Goldschmidt

(2005; 2011) has examined hacking as an enterprise focused on creating entertainment as well

as the construction of the hacker identity. While all of this scholarship is important to understand-

ing hacking, perhaps the literature that best facilitates an understanding of hackers’ critiques of

government, law, and law enforcement concerns the ‘‘hacker ethic.’’

In much of the hacker literature, the idea of a unifying hacker ethic has been explored—a

concept first introduced by Levy (1984). While many authors have tackled the ethic, Coleman

(2012) warns against reifying the idea of an overarching and consistent ethos guiding the hacker

subculture. She argues that the hacking subculture contains a great deal of diversity that one idea

of the hacker ethic may not adequately represent. There are, however, certain recurring and

notable features discussed in the literature that highlight at least an overarching subcultural

ethos.

The hacker ethic can be viewed as a particular ontological perspective adopted by members of

the hacking subculture. This viewpoint is simultaneously underpinned by a philosophy of liber-

alism (Coleman and Golub 2008) and a belief that the world operates as a system or a series

HACKER CRITIQUE OF GOVERNMENT, LAW, & LAW ENFORCEMENT 245

of interoperating systems (Warnick 2004). Combined together, these two aspects give rise to

multiple features of the hacking subculture. First is the belief that information wants to be free(Levy 1984; Stallman 2002). As Stallman (2002:43) asserts, this is not ‘‘free’’ in the sense of

‘‘free beer’’ but free as in ‘‘free speech.’’ Involved is the idea that since information wants to

be free, restrictions on access to information serves as an abomination (Hollinger 1991; Levy

1984; Stallman 2002), which serve to explain many efforts hackers have been known to make

in circumventing technological security measures (Hollinger 1991).

A second feature of the hacker ethic is a desire to engage in activities in an active, hands-on

manner (Levy 1984) in which work and leisure are blurred together (Brown 2008). Rather than

passively consume technology and media, hackers instead choose to learn about and tinker with

systems that leads to creating new or improved systems as well as an ability to manipulate them.

This desire to explore and manipulate extends to both technological and social systems with the

latter being subjected to a practice referred to as social engineering (Coleman and Golub 2008;

Mitnick and Simon 2002, 2011; Thompson 2006). This feature, which Levy (1984) refers to as

the hands-on imperative, has also led to the development of the free and open source software

movements (F=OSS) which involves the collaborative creation of freely and openly available

programs, applications, and operating systems (Coleman and Golub 2008; Dafermos and

Soderberg 2009).

A final feature of the hacker ethic is a sense of technological utopianism (Barbrook and

Cameron 2001). In this sense, technology is viewed as a potential remedy to many of the ills

society currently faces. Any shortcomings experienced in any domain of life are thought to have

a potential technological solution. Involved is also a desire to use technology to circumvent

restrictions (often meant to obstruct access to systems) and protect oneself, particularly regarding

privacy (Coleman and Golub 2008).

In sum, the hacker ethic combines the philosophy of liberalism and a systemic ontology that

engenders (1) a belief that information wants to be free, (2) a desire to be hands-on with systems

of all sorts, and (3) a sense of technological utopianism. As the reader will see, these features of

the hacker ethic permeate their perspectives toward governments, law, law enforcement, and

government representatives.

METHOD

The current study involves a content analysis of the hacker ‘‘zine’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly(hereby referred to as 2600), recognized as one of the ‘‘first significant hacker publications’’

(Thomas 2005:604).2 2600 has been published since 1984 and was created by Emmanuel

Goldstein (pseudonym of Eric Corley). The zine features articles written by hackers—often pub-

lished under pseudonyms—and submitted to the zine as well as letters to the editor, short stories,

and book reviews. In addition, every issue begins with an editorial penned by Goldstein or the

editorial staff. The zine has become widely circulated and is even sold on the bookshelves of a

major bookseller, Barnes & Noble. 2600 is an ideal zine to analyze because of its significance

within the history of hacking, its widespread popularity, and its collection of articles written by

hackers. Articles published within its pages represent the views of its hacker-authors and its wide

2A ‘‘zine’’ is a self-published magazine with a typically small circulation among a niche population.


circulation indicates a great deal of interest in these perspectives. It is precisely for this reason

that the current analysis uses 2600 to understand hackers’ critiques of the government.3

Sample

The sample for this study was drawn from 41 issues of 2600 ranging from the Spring 2002 issue

to Spring 2012. This time period was selected because the Spring 2002 issue was published

shortly after the events of 9=11, which shaped the United States’ security policy (Cole and Lobel

2007). Hackers were greatly affected (and continue to be) through an increase in scrutiny and

development in the area of cybersecurity. The time frame from the sample runs into the Spring

2012 issue, the most recent issue at the time of data gathering and analysis. This provides just

over an 11-year time period for analysis. Articles, editorials, book reviews, and short stories

from each of these issues comprise the units of analysis for this study. In total, over 839 articles,

41 editorials, 8 short stories, and 2 reviews (collectively referred to as items) written by 611 dif-

ferent authors were examined for any mention of law enforcement, legislation, politicians, or any

other government body, agency, or institution (see Table 1). The only omissions made were

mentions of schools or teachers because it was difficult if not impossible to consistently ascertain

from the text whether the school was public or private.

As each item in the zines was examined, each article which made mention of the government

was flagged and logged in an electronic dataset. Notes were taken briefly describing the content

of the article, short story, and so on to provide context for later analysis. Then, the passages that

mentioned government in any capacity were lifted from the zine and preserved in the electronic

dataset. This process resulted in the creation of a subsample for analysis that consisted of 197

articles, 35 editorials, 6 short stories, and 1 book review written by 152 different authors—a total

of 26.76% of the full sample that dealt with government, law, law enforcement, and public

officials.

Coding Procedure

The current study uses a grounded theory–based analytical approach (Charmaz 2006; Strauss and

Corbin 1998) to examine those items that discussed government, law, law enforcement, and

public officials. This approach involves a multi-tiered—often iterative—inductive systematic

approach to coding qualitative data. Grounded theory methods of analysis ‘‘consist of flexible

strategies for focusing and expediting qualitative data collection’’ and ‘‘provide a set of inductive

steps that successively lead the researcher from studying concrete realities to rendering a concep-

tual understanding of them’’ (Charmaz 2002:675). The coding procedure adopted here includes

three stages of analysis. In the first stage of coding, each passage extracted from the issues of 2600was given a short description of how the author portrayed the government body or individual

employee. The objective in this stage was to plainly state what the author is conveying in their

3Because pseudonyms are often used to provide some level of anonymity for the writers, it is impossible to provide a

breakdown of demographic characteristics of the authors. Identifying characteristics like gender, race, age, and geo-

graphic location would be an act of speculation at best. The reader should be aware that while the zine has a global reach,

the audience largely seems to be U.S.-centric.


portrayal of government, law, and=or law enforcement. In the second stage, each passage was

examined again alongside the results of the first wave. At this stage, passages and descriptions

were distilled down into short words or phrases which attempted to capture the essence of what

the author was conveying. The goal of this wave was to find words or phrases which best

summarized the meaning given by the authors to allow broader comparisons to be made between

portrayals. In the third stage, the data and the results of the previous stages were analyzed for

common themes permeating the data. The current study focuses on five overarching themes

which emerged. The first three serve as a hacker critique of governments and officials: (1)

government as controlling, (2) government as incompetent or inadequate, and (3) governmentas creating collateral damage. The fourth theme discussed is exceptions to the hacker critique,

providing for a nuanced view of governments. The final theme that emerged was potential

solutions to the problems discussed by hackers.

A HACKER CRITIQUE

Table 2 presents the number of items within each issue of 2600 that various themes emerged.

The reader should note that the total number of appearances of themes within the items in the

zine equal a total greater than the number of items, because each item may contain more than

one themes. A total of five themes are included in Table 2: government as controlling(n¼ 180; 75.31%); government as incompetent or inadequate (n¼ 100; 41.84%); governmentas creators of collateral damage (n¼ 62; 25.94%); exceptions (89; 37.24%); and solutions

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics

Full sample Subsample

# of Articles 893 239

Articles 839 197

Editorials 41 35

Reviews 2 1

Short stories 8 6

# of authors 611� 152

�Some authors were included that may be duplicates with slight variations on

names like kaige and kaigeX. Omitting duplicates bringing the number to 608.

TABLE 2

Themes

Themes Total (% of articles in subsample)

Control 180 (75.31)

Inadequate or incompetent 100 (41.84)

Collateral 62 (25.94)

Exceptions 89 (37.24)

Solutions 79 (33.05)


(79; 33.05%). The first three themes are discussed as they represent the hacker critique of

governments, law, law enforcement, officials, and so on. Then, exceptions to the hacker critique

are discussed to paint a more nuanced view of the hacker perspective for the reader. Finally,

hacker solutions for the problems discussed are provided. The reader should also be made aware

that all references provided within this section are pulled from the 2600 magazine except

for some of those provided in the subsection entitled ‘‘Where Do We Go From Here? Hacker

Suggested Solutions to their Critiques.’’

Government as Controlling

The first theme that emerged from the analysis of the subsample is government as controlling(n¼ 180; 75.31%). At first glance, the prevalence of this theme may not come as a surprise. Indeed,

governments are usually considered the institutions for formal social control. Of importance,

though, is the particular way in which hackers describe the government as a controlling institution.

While the exact nature of the control described by the authors differs, the pejorative view in which

it is expressed remains consistent. Examples of the way governments are controlling described in

this analysis include government surveillance efforts, government secrecy, and censorship.

Surveillance

Perhaps the most common way that governments are described as controlling is through author

commentary on surveillance. Surveillance is a mechanism of state control that seeks to monitor

people and amass information to scrutinize and potentially act to control individual behavior.

When discussing the controlling nature of the government through surveillance, one of the

biggest concerns for hackers is the direct watching and monitoring by governments. For example,

The Prophet (2002:24) comments on the capability of agencies like the FBI to track movements

using cellular phones: ‘‘If you carry such a phone, the FBI knows exactly where you are at all

times. (Of course, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI will only use that capability against criminals and ter-

rorists, right?) [sarcasm].’’ Goldstein (2008) also comments on the long running concern about

surveillance in 2600 as he discusses the rapid advances made in surveillance technology:

We’ve been talking about the increasing amounts of surveillance since we first started publishing

back in 1984. Back then it was more of a ‘‘what if’’ scenario, where most of us feared what could

happen if the government had the ability to track us in real time, if there were cameras everywhere, if

our private information was no longer so private. As part of the hacker community, we knew full

well how fleeting any form of privacy actually was. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the years,

it’s that those entrusted with keeping our private information secure aren’t really expending all that

much effort to achieve this. (Goldstein 2008:4)

Another way surveillance is discussed by the authors of 2600 is through the amassing and collect-

ing of private information into datasets by governments. For instance, Xen (2006) discusses the

implementation of a license plate tracking system in the United Kingdom and says:

As of Autumn 2005 an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) system has been rolled out

across the United Kingdom . . . . This nationwide system is run centrally from London and is


expected to process as many as 50 million number plates a day by the end of 2006. During proces-

sing of these number plates the information of where and when they were seen will be logged and

key on file for at least two years. (Xen 2006:11)

Secrecy

While discussing surveillance efforts by governments, the authors also write about a certain

hypocrisy of governments: while individual privacy is coercively diminished, governments seek

to maintain and reinforce their own abilities to maintain privacy and secrecy. The government is

criticized because it seeks to not only control individuals’ information but withhold its own. For

instance, Goldstein (2008) refers to the creation of secret courts by the U.S. government for the

purposes of surveillance:

You may have seen mention of something called FISA in the news recently. The Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 may well have escaped the radar of many, as it basically authorizes a

‘‘secret court’’ to approve warrants to collect foreign intelligence information in the United States.

(Goldstein 2008:5)

In discussing the various problems surrounding the U.S. ‘‘No-Fly List’’ implemented after 9=11,

author cbsm2009 (2009) states:

The names of people on the lists (the No-fly list and the Selectee list, which doesn’t prevent a person

from flying but requires him or her to undergo additional physical searches) are classified by the U.S.

government, cannot be challenged in a court of law, and are compiled from unknown sources.

(cbsm2009 2009:12)

In a final example, Piyter Hurd (2012:58) discusses WikiLeaks and how transparency or the

inability to control secrets in the government is antithetical to governance: ‘‘ ‘Information should

be free’ is not a sustainable tenet of parliamentary democracy. Complete transparency represents,

in Landauer’s language, a relationship that forms the noose of all governance.’’

Censorship

Another way that governments are portrayed as desirous of control is through censorship or the

control of access to content or particular messages. Tokachu (2006) identifies the Chinese govern-

ment as widely recognized practitioners of Internet censorship. Similarly, Dragorn (2010:53) dis-

cusses the practice of the U.S. government of blocking foreign websites posting material that is

used for piracy or counterfeiting stating, ‘‘Blocking content is censorship, and once it becomes easy

for a government to censor some content, it becomes easier to censor more and more content.’’

Summary

The authors of these items within 2600 repeatedly discussed the government and its various

institutions and actors as controllers or instruments of control. The three ways discussed here are

the most prominent ways this theme is discussed. Some others which have not been provided in


the text include the government as arrestors or seizers, manipulative, instruments of third-partycontrol (such as through lawsuits and use of police forces), and builders of barriers to name a

few. Overall, the message is essentially the same: the government is criticized or otherwise

viewed negatively for placing restrictions and seeking control and dominance over various

aspects of people’s lives.

Government as Incompetent or Inadequate

The second theme uncovered through the examination of the author’s portrayals of the govern-

ment is that the government was viewed as incompetent or inadequate (n¼ 100; 41.84%).

Within this theme, governments, their institutions, and their actors are portrayed as functioning

in a manner that has fallen from the ideal of what the government should be. These portrayals

take multiple shapes and forms, some of which will be described here including governments

as ignorant or misguided, incompetent to protect, and corrupt.

Governments as Ignorant or Misguided

One way in which governments are viewed as incompetent or inadequate is through

ignorance, naivete, or through being misled about some topic. One way this occurs is through

governments having a false perception of what a hacker is. Goldstein (2003b) demonstrates this

perspective when he talks about the transition in public perceptions toward hacking:

Hackers were no longer just kids playing around. In the eyes of mainstream society, hackers had

become definable as actual criminals, along with thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. In some cases hack-

ers were viewed with more fear than violent criminals and even received greater sentences. And again

it seemed incredibly absurd. While such abuse and illogical thinking proved to be a lot harder for us to

get used to, a good number of politicians, judges, and members of law enforcement seemed to have no

trouble with the concept. They could envision sending a hacker to prison for life for crimes that in the

real world would hardly merit an overnight stay in the county jail. (Goldstein 2003b:4)

Here, Goldstein (2003b) is expressing a viewpoint that casts various government actors as

conducting their duties in a misguided fashion, having an image of hackers disjointed from

reality. Author Phocks (2003) describes the misguided view of the Internet possessed by the

U.S. government:

Imagine a world, if you will, plagued by terrorists and evildoers, whose weapon is the personal

computer. It has powerful encryption used to block anyone from reading plans of how to destroy

structures vital to a country’s survival. It contains a slew of programs designed solely for destroying

security and rendering the world helpless to attacks. And anonymously connecting to a terrorist

network consisting of tens of thousands of systems just like it, bringing together all who oppose

a country to share information and formulate plans of attack. Welcome to the government’s view

of the Internet. (Phocks 2003:54)

Phocks (2003) is describing the U.S. government as having a perspective on the Internet which

is divorced from reality—viewed through a security-centric lens of fear. In this view, hackers


describe governments as largely ignorant about technology and hackers, which leads to mis-

guided policy.

Incompetent to Protect

A second way in which governments are described as incompetent or inadequate is in their

inability to protect their citizens, primarily their private information. Here, governments are per-

ceived as holding the duty to protect the safety and privacy of those they rule and yet they fall

short. Author cbsm2009 (2009:12) describes how the U.S. government fails to protect citizens’

safety at airports properly through their flawed security measures, particularly the ‘‘No-Fly list’’:

’’ . . . . for the past five years we Americans have been sacrificing our privacy and security with a

sham system that decreases, rather than increases, our air travel security.’’ Because the ‘‘No-Fly

list’’ provides a false sense of security, he argues that the security measure is vulnerable to

manipulation and therefore is an inadequate protection of traveler safety.

Squealing Sheep (2006) provides another example demonstrating how the U.S. government,

according to him=her, does not adequately protect personal information. This author writes about

a lack of regulation to protect individual’s credit records from manipulation: ‘‘The problem is

this is setting up every citizen in our country to become a victim of identity theft, a crime in

which personal information such as a name, address, or social security number is misused to

obtain goods and services’’ (Squealing Sheep 2006:29). Squealing Sheep (2006) goes further

by stating, ‘‘[t]here is not one law maker truly lobbying for the protection of the citizens, the

very same citizens electing the lawmakers to office’’ (29). In other words, the U.S. government

is said to fail to act to protect its citizens’ private information.

Corrupt

Another demonstration by the authors of 2600 of the incompetence or inadequacy of govern-

ments is through corruption. Used in this sense, corruption indicates that a government cannot

control its own institutions or actors in a satisfactory manner. The Prophet (2010), a recurring

author, discusses the inadequacies of the United States in terms of its broadband penetration

(availability of broadband Internet connections) compared to other countries. He explains what

is at fault, ‘‘[t]he U.S., frankly, isn’t even on the radar screen. It’s globally ranked 20th in broad-

band penetration, and I’ve given up on policy-makers there to think beyond their own corrupt

self-interest’’ (The Prophet 2010:13). In another example, Goldstein (2003a:4) asserts that

‘‘ . . . now we are at a point where those already in power have grown impatient with such things

as due process, civil rights, and public perception. In some disturbing and almost comical exam-

ples, we see exactly how little the law actually means to them.’’

Similarly, in a short story written by Leviathan (2011) as a cautionary tale concerning govern-

ment authority, the government is described as engaging in brutal and corrupt practices:

[from a fictionalized news broadcast within the story] Investigation by the BBC’s Washington

Bureau has uncovered more circumstantial evidence that President Martera’s [the fictional U.S.

president] administration ordered the brutal murder of two American journalists in May of last year,

evidently for reporting on the military kickback scandal which implicated Martera’s chief of Staff


Joel McLaren and his deputy Lawrence Young. Further, there is evidence of a detailed, complex

chain of command between the assassins and the President himself. (Leviathan 2011:57)

Summary

The aforementioned ways in which the government is said to be incompetent or inadequate

are just the most important of many. Other portrayals include the legal system as unreliable, thegovernment as susceptible to manipulation, and that the system is ultimately irrational. Overall,

these examples demonstrate a critical perspective of the government as a system which does not

function as it should and falls short of fulfilling its duties. Perhaps capturing the perspective most

adequately, author Squire (2007:29) describes the incompetence of policymakers: ‘‘As real

hackers we solve problems, while the law and politicians only make matters worse.’’

Government as Creators of Collateral Damage

The third theme in the hacker critique of governments, law, and law enforcement is that these

institutions’ actions can yield collateral damage (n¼ 62; 25.94%). There are multiple ways

this collateral damage can manifest itself which include diminishing privacy, civil rights,

due process and other freedoms, as well as more detrimental damages such as deaths or

torture. Interestingly, many of these damages are a result of efforts of governments to control

through incompetent or inadequate policies or actions. In line with the previous discussion on

governments as controllers, Xen (2006) discusses the increasing surveillance state in the

United Kingdom, which is alleged to become increasingly intrusive and harmful to privacy

and civil rights: ‘‘These systems are wrong on every level and any advantages the government

can come up with—or elaborate a ‘one in a billion chance’ scenario for these systems saving

us from a nuclear attack—is just not worth the invasion of privacy and destruction of civil

rights’’ (Xen 2006:13).

Bowne (2011) indicates that the government is responsible for the erosion of Fourth

Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures:

The temptation to become an outlaw is very strong right now. For a decade, our government has used

its propaganda machine to make us all very afraid, so we no longer expect Fourth Amendment

protections. The ‘‘emergency’’ is so dire that our leaders cannot afford the luxury of ethics. (Bowne

2011:55)

Goldstein (2003a) asserts the U.S. government’s War on Terror has undermined due process as

well as permitted the use of torture, creating both civil and physical damage to individuals. He

states ‘‘[b]y being defined as an ‘enemy combatant,’ the rules on due process can be suspended.

Not only that, but torture is increasingly seen as a valid way of obtaining information from a

suspect’’ (Goldstein 2003a:5).

Interestingly, an element which links many of the portrayals of control, incompetence and

inadequacy, and collateral damage is a politics of fear. In essence, a security-focused and fear-

driven government which directs its policies towards combating the nebulous forces of terrorism


is likely to yield collateral damage. To implement greater measures of control over a population,

fear is said to be necessary:

Before any of us know what has happened warrantless searches, state sanctioned torture, imprison-

ment without charge, and technology used to monitor our every move and categorize us will become

the status quo. It will then be so much harder to move things back to the way they were since we

won’t have the weapon of fear at our disposal as those changing the world today do in such great

abundance . . . . It’s truly amazing what fear can accomplish. (Goldstein 2004:4)

In sum, actions and policies enacted by governments can generate a tremendous degree of col-

lateral damage. The two primary sources of this damage, according to the authors, appear to be

government’s attempts to control or increase control, as well as varying degrees of incompetence

or inadequacy in the implementation of these attempts. Damages include the erosion of privacy,

due process, the presumption of innocence, the first amendment, as well as other rights and legal

protections. In addition, these detriments can also include physical pain and even death. In other

words, the harms inflicted as a result of the desire to control and through incompetent or

inadequate implementation of governmental functions make governments ‘‘the greatest crime

syndicate since the Gambinos’’ (OSIN 2007:6).

A NUANCED VIEW: EXCEPTIONS TO THE HACKER CRITIQUE

The previous sections may give the reader the impression that the authors in 2600 only critique

and even loath governments, law, and law enforcement. This conclusion would be mistaken

however as, like with most groups, the collective view is more complex with many authors

offering views which are exceptions to the aforementioned critique (n¼ 89; 37.24%). Indeed,

exceptions to the hacker critique are mentioned so frequently that they constitute the third most

prevalent theme discussed here. Consider this statement from BY3M@N (2010):

Any fans of the general concept of freedom in the government should thank their lucky stars that

there were some forward thinking individuals in the U.S. government a few decades ago. Those guys

came up with the concept and implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA,

pronounced ‘‘FOY-A’’), in 1966. (BY3M@N 2010:54)

While the author later communicates some cynicism in regards to the current state of the FOIA,

the author clearly states here that not all actions by the government are detrimental and, indeed,

some are favorable.

Generally, authors do not detest the idea of governments, but rather of poorly functioning or

harmful ones. Bowne (2011:55) declares, ‘‘I want a world of law and order, in which people

must be tried and convicted before they are punished.’’ He wants a legal system which can both

punish people for committing crimes while simultaneously doing so in a fair and just manner.

Toni-Sama (2007) also demonstrates how hackers may be desirous of government protections

as he discusses the need for regulations of cellular phones and VoIP networks:

It could also be easily spoofed from a cellphone. In addition, most consumer VoIP networks don’t

support encryption, so phone calls could be intercepted and even changed. This should be legislated


soon, since government is extremely interested in regulating this new form of communication.

(Toni-Sama 2007:49)

To summarize, it is not that government itself is completely rejected by most of these authors

(although, there are a few voices which buck this trend, discussed further in the following

section). Rather, hackers are critical of the government and want it to live up to an ideal which

protects individual freedoms and liberties. Steps taken by the government to provide these

protections are viewed favorably but skeptically.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? HACKER SUGGESTED SOLUTIONSTO THEIR CRITIQUES

Not only hacker critiques or exceptions to these critiques exist within the pages of 2600: TheHacker Quarterly. Indeed, hackers also provide details about how to fix the problems confront-

ing the government (n¼ 79; 33.05%). To properly understand these solutions, it is important to

remember that hackers have been found to have an ontology which views the world and its com-

ponents as a technical system (Warnick 2004), which in this case, also includes governments.

This philosophy seems to pervade the solutions suggested by hackers towards fixing this system.

In particular, it manifests itself through the assertion that encouraging or permitting the free-flow

of information through various parties can act as a sort of panacea for the system. For instance,

Goldstein (2002) asserts that one of the reasons bad or ‘‘evil’’ laws are enacted is because of a

lack of public knowledge: ‘‘People have become aware of the evils of the DMCA [Digital

Millennium Copyright Act]. When this first started years ago, so few people knew anything

about it—that’s how it became law in the first place’’ (p. 5). Finally, Dr. Apocalypse and Matt

Fillhart (2006:53) describe the effects that government or corporate limitations on technology,

primarily through digital rights management systems, could yield: ‘‘[h]owever, the use of digital

technology should not be limited by corporation or government, and the shift of control to pro-

ducers (even after sale) will ultimately hurt creative expression and damage consumer rights.’’

The solution is simple, according to the authors—do not place restrictions.

Two Tactics: Liberal Versus Radical Approaches

The overarching philosophy behind hacker solutions is essentially the old expression

‘‘knowledge is power.’’ There is, however, an interesting dynamic between the two tactics

that are advocated: a liberal and a radical approach. Before discussing the tactics, a quick

description of the particular uses of liberal and radical are warranted. The distinction between

the two is best described in the words of Howard Zinn given in an interview to the magazine

Zcommunications:

A liberal thinks that the system is basically good, but that it has a few flaws. . . .Liberals think that

you can work within the system and maybe get a better president. Radicals think that the whole

system is so corrupt that it will swallow you up and spit you out. Radicals also think that you need

to create powerful social movements outside the system that will put pressure on the system, what

has been called a permanent culture of resistance. (Tant 2004)


Essentially, a liberal approach believes in the self-corrective properties of the system. Use

the mechanisms built into the system and change can happen. A radical approach holds that

something is fundamentally wrong with the system which needs to be addressed through social

movements, resistance, and transgression.

The hackers of 2600 advocate for liberal and radical tactics simultaneously. They suggest

ways to use the system itself for change as well as use subversive tactics to achieve change.

An example of an author suggesting a liberal approach to social change is provided by Pat D.

(2011:54): ‘‘The last and final thing you can do to protect your anonymity and privacy in the

digital age is to stay informed and lobby the lawmakers. Let them know that you are not happy

with the changes they are trying to make in regards to your online privacy.’’ Similarly, area 51

(2002:55) writes in opposition to a bill: ‘‘So what can be done about the bill? It is still in Con-

gress, so I urge you to contact your congressional representative.’’

Another tactic which may be considered more liberal than radical is the tactic of civil

disobedience or public protest. As Goldstein (2003a) writes:

Disobeying an unjust law is another tactic to force the hand of lawmakers, one which often carries a

heavy price. Despite this, it’s rare that the entire structure of the legal system is also disobeyed—

those engaging in civil disobedience tend not to try and escape prosecution; rather, they use the struc-

ture of the system to voice their objections to the law or policy they’re protesting against. (Goldstein

2003a:4)

Interestingly, Goldstein (2003a) makes this comment in reply to those who hide behind the

Internet and engage in DDoS attacks rather than put themselves out in public to face the risks

of protests. Writer aestetix (2011:16) makes a similar distinction when talking about the online

‘‘hacktivist’’ group Anonymous, who engages in both public protests and acts of political trans-

gression like DDoS attacks: ‘‘Sometimes there are seemingly negative actions, such as DDoSing.

Sometimes there are seemingly positive actions, such as having peaceful protests that call

attention to progressive change.’’ In this sense, more radical forms of transgression are looked

down upon while more orthodox means of encouraging change are advocated.

At the same time, the authors still encourage acts of guerrilla resistance and transgression

which are more radical tactics. Radical tactics for implementing social change by hackers sug-

gested in 2600 include the transgressive circumvention of technological barriers erected by gov-

ernments. Eberhard (2008) discusses reading about the ‘‘Great Firewall of China’’ and states:

Reading Fallows’ article immediately made me think about how to get around the Chinese firewall,

and made me wonder how many people there already have. I guess it’s the hacker instinct in me—I

go straight from being outraged about the invasion of privacy to wondering how I might hack it if I

had to. (26)

Another radical tactic of subversion is suggested by WillPC (2007). He discusses the increase in

government scrutiny over file sharing (a form of data exchange) against hackers and other Inter-

net groups and suggests that Internet users should resist this scrutiny through the creation of

encrypted Internet networks called ‘‘darknets,’’ ‘‘This new wave of totalitarianism calls for

the next generation of file sharing technologies, darknets’’ (WillPC 2007:15).


The two radical tactics mentioned above have one thing in common, circumvention. When

the government erects barriers to access and information or attempts to monitor online activity,

the radical solution is to transgress and circumvent those measures adopted by the government.

As alluded to earlier in the description of the hacker ethic, this impetus to circumvent may spring

from the belief that information wants to be free as well as a sense of cyberutopianism (a belief

that all problems have technical solutions).

In sum, solutions to the problems discussed by hackers larger are underpinned by a belief that

information should be freely exchanged. The tactics adopted or advocated by the authors are

two-pronged. First, a liberal approach is suggested which involves using mechanisms built into

or legitimately accepted by the government to enact change. These can include soliciting repre-

sentatives for change or engaging in public protest or civil disobedience. The second prong is a

radical approach that recommends using hacker skills to circumvent or otherwise bypass govern-

ment attempts at restricting access to or impeding the flow of information as well as attempting

to engage in measures of surveillance. To continue the system metaphor, use the mechanisms

built into the system to achieve change or circumvent the problematic areas. Either way, the

desired result is achieved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This analysis has centered on a hacker critique of governments, law, and law enforcement as

detailed in the pages of the hacker zine 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. In general, the hackers

critiqued governments in three ways. First, governments were said to be controlling. Second,

the government was described as incompetent and inadequate. Finally, hackers discussed the

government as creating collateral damage through its policies and actions, largely as a result

of their efforts at control and through their incompetence or inadequacy. While the thrust of this

study was geared toward uncovering a hacker critique of governments, the analysis uncovered

that their perspective is more than just critical. The authors seemed to largely support some

government actions or policies as well as give some legitimacy to their existence. Perhaps more

constructively, this analysis then presented solutions given by the authors to the critiques offered

which primarily concerned the free exchange of information with both liberal and radical

approaches to change.

A concern with information has been a recurring motif throughout this analysis. Indeed, it

seems that hacker perspectives on government, law, law enforcement, and other public officials

were heavily influenced by the subculture’s philosophy of liberalism and technological ontologi-

cal orientation. For instance, the authors often discussed control in the context of the restriction

of access to data by the public or the gathering of private information by the government. The

heavy emphasis on the philosophy of liberalism permeating the hacker subculture—a philosophy

which seeks to uphold ethical values such as ‘‘freedom, free speech, privacy, the individual,

[and] meritocracy’’ (Coleman and Golub 2008:256)—helps explain why hackers find various

measures of control over individuals and information repugnant.

Perhaps more importantly, as Warnick (2004) explains using Lakoff and Johnson’s

(1980:266) ‘‘conceptual metaphor theory,’’ hackers perceive the world through a particular

ontological metaphor: the ‘‘world is a computer system.’’ As a computer system, the


world—and all other subsystems, such as governments—function best when data or information

can move around unencumbered.4 As such:

Hackers generally give little value to structures of exterior governance or to cultural and religious

authority. . . . Indeed, hackers tend to see themselves as combating any closed system that would

prefer to keep secrets—most prominently, large corporations and governments [emphasis added].

(Warnick 2004:272)

This particular ontology also holds that, because the world is a system, effectiveness and

efficiency are highly valued (Warnick 2004). The reason hackers may focus so much on various

forms of incompetence or inadequacy in government actions is because of the desire for opti-

mum operational capacity. In addition, this metaphorical ontology helps explain the focus on

collateral damage. Harms are evidence of the problems wrought by an improper, ineffective,

and=or inefficient system.

Warnick’s (2004) work on hacker ontology also helps to explain the solutions offered by hack-

ers. If a technological system is running in a manner which is not optimal, measures need to be

taken to make it run optimally. Measuring ideal operations is performed against the philosophical

values of liberalism (Coleman and Golub 2008). As such, steps need to be taken—both within

(liberal) and outside (radical)—to make the system of government, law enforcement, politics,

and so on to operate more effectively in line with liberalism. In short, the anti-authoritarian ten-

dencies of the hacker community could be explained through two mechanisms: the philosophy

underpinning hacker ethical perspectives (liberalism) in addition to a sense of reality shaped

by technological systems.

There is a peculiar contradiction between the three most prominent themes which emerged in

this analysis: government as controlling, government as incompetent or inadequate, and govern-ment as creators of collateral damage. In the first theme, government as controlling, the authors

give the impression that governments, particularly the United States, are extremely competent in

building networks of surveillance and control. In the other themes, government as incompetent orinadequate and government as creators of collateral damage, the government is portrayed as the

opposite—a body of power that fumbles with one hand and smashes with the other: governments

are portrayed as James Bond on one hand and the Pink Panther=Jacques Clouseau on the other.

It is not uncommon to find contradictions in belief systems. Indeed, most belief systems seem

mired in contradiction. While an in-depth analysis of this contradiction may be beyond the scope

of this analysis, some explanation is warranted. Belief systems are constructed from a process of

interpretation and sense-making situated within a given social, cultural, and historical context. As

various concepts come to be understood and woven together, they begin to compose a series of

ontologies. Considering the complexity of these ontologies, it is not surprising that contradictions

would emerge within them—often going unnoticed. In addition, multiple or contradictory logic

structures may be applied to the beliefs which can act to sustain contradictions within them. In short,

it would be surprising if potential contradictions within hacker belief structures were not found.5

4Of course, a distinction made by the authors of 2600 is that exchange of information should occur freely except that

the government should act to protect private or personal information. This is an interesting contradiction which should be

explored in subsequent research.5For greater explications of and debate over contradictions in belief systems, refer to Franks (2003) and Samson (2004).


As with any study, numerous limitations confront the current analysis. First, only one of many

hacker zines was selected for analysis. Different zines may yield different results. While acknowl-

edging this limitation, the reader should note that 2600: The Hacker Quarterly is a widely pub-

lished, popular, and long-running zine. While the results from this study many not represent the

entire hacker subculture, it may represent the views of a sizable portion of it. Second and related to

the first, editorial bias may have influenced the results. Articles chosen for publication in 2600 are

not selected in a vacuum. As such, the decisions made by the editor may engender an overrepre-

sentation of particular perspectives in this publication. Future research would benefit from look-

ing across multiple publications or multiple forms of data to help control for editorial bias. At the

same time, 2600 magazine is widely read—a status that it may not have achieved if its views did

not reflect, at least to some extent, broader perspectives in the hacker community.

The third limitation confronting this analysis involves the particular data used in this analysis;

articles, editorials, short stories, and book reviews from the pages of 2600. This study may be

limited in the fact that many of the authors wrote these pieces with particular goals in mind, which

may not have included giving their entire view of governments. In addition, the words published

in the zine may have just been those the authors saw fit to release to the public and may not rep-

resent the totality of their individual perspectives. Regardless, the data still provide insight into an

overall perspective permeating the 2600. In addition, the frequent use of handles or pseudonyms

indicates that the authors may have been protecting their identities so they could express their

views more fully. Fourth, the data for this analysis did not include letters to the editor. Analyzing

these items may have generated different or more robust findings as it would have increased the

number of perspectives included as well as included those persons who may not have written well

enough to be published as an author. These were excluded due to time constraints on the data

gathering process. Future content analyses may be well-served to include these data. Finally, this

study used secondary data to draw its conclusions (items published in 2600). Other forms of data

may yield different, confirming or refuting, and most certainly more refined conclusions. The cur-

rent study is the first step in what is hopefully a long road toward exploring hacker perspectives.

The results of this study are just one take on the hacker perspective toward government, law,

and law enforcement. Other interpretations may be possible. Future research should be conducted

to continue exploring this phenomenon. More research should be conducted to refine our under-

standing of hacker views on government control, competency, and consequences. In addition,

research elaborating on the solutions hackers suggest should also be considered. Finally, other

methodologies should be implemented to approach this subject as face-to-face interviews, partici-

pant observation, or survey research may create a more robust understanding of the hacker sub-

culture in general and their views on government in particular. Too often criminology casts a

downward gaze on criminals without also asking for—and seriously considering—their perspec-

tives. Future research can only stand to benefit from the inclusion of their voices in the discourse.

REFERENCES

aestetix. 2011. ‘‘Who is Anonymous?’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 28:15–16.

area 51. 2002. ‘‘CBDTPA: Another Privacy Concern.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 19:54–55.

Barbrook, Richard and Andy Cameron. 2001. ‘‘California Ideology.’’ Pp. 363–388 in Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, andPirate Utopias, edited by P. Ludlow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bowne, Sam. 2011. ‘‘Wear a White Hat.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 28:55.


Brown, James. 2008. ‘‘From Friday to Sunday: The Hacker Ethic and Shifting Notions of Labour, Leisure, and Intellectual

Property.’’ Leisure Studies 27:395–409.

BY3M@N. 2010. ‘‘Phun with FOIA.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 27:54.

cbsm2009. 2009, Summer. ‘‘Why the ‘No-Fly List’ is a Fraud.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 26:12.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2002. ‘‘Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.’’ Pp. 675–694 in Handbook of InterviewResearch: Context & Method, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

———. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Cole, David and Jules Lobel. 2007.Less Safe, Less Free:WhyAmerica is Losing theWar on Terror. New York: The New Press.

Coleman, Gabriella. 2010. ‘‘The Hacker Conference: A Ritual Condensation and Celebration of a Lifeworld.’’

Anthropological Quarterly 83:47–72.

———. 2012. ‘‘Phreakers, Hackers, and Trolls and the Politics of Transgression and Spectacle.’’ Pp. 99–119 in TheSocial Media Reader, edited by M. Mandiberg. New York: NYU Press.

Coleman, Gabriella and Alex Golub. 2008. ‘‘Hacker Practice: Moral Genres and the Cultural Articulation of

Liberalism.’’ Anthropological Theory 8:255–277.

Dafermos, George and Johan Soderberg. 2009. ‘‘The Hacker Movement as a Continuation of Labour Struggle.’’ Capital& Class 33:53–73.

Dragorn. 2010. ‘‘Transmissions.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 27:52–53.

Dr. Apocalypse and Matt Fillhart. 2006. ‘‘Information’s Imprisonment.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 23:52–53.

Eberhard, Martin. 2008. ‘‘Hacker Perspective.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 25:26–28.

Franks, Bradley. 2003. ‘‘The Nature of Unnaturalness in Religious Representations: Negation and Concept

Combination.’’ Journal of Cognition & Culture 3:41–68.

Friere, P. 1968=2006. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.

Furnell, Steven. 2010. ‘‘Hackers, Viruses and Malicious Software.’’ Pp. 173–193 in Handbook of Internet Crime, edited

by Y. Jewkes and M. Yar. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Goldstein, Emmanuel. 2002. ‘‘Fair Use and Abuse.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 19:4–5.

———. 2003a. ‘‘Disrespecting the Law.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 20:4–5.

———. 2003b. ‘‘Paranoia vs. Sanity.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 20:4–5.

———. 2004. ‘‘Stick Around.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 21:4–5.

———. 2008. ‘‘The Whole World’s Watching.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 25:4–5.

Halbert, Debora. 1997. ‘‘Discourses of Danger and the Computer Hacker.’’ The Information Society 13:361–374.

Higgins, George. 2010. Cybercrime: An Introduction to an Emerging Phenomenon. New York: McGraw Hill Higher

Education.

Hollinger, Richard. 1991. ‘‘Hackers: Computer Heroes or Electronic Highwaymen?’’ Computers & Society 21:6–17.

Holt, Tom. 2009. ‘‘Examining the Role of Technology in the Formation of Deviant Subcultures.’’ Social Science

Computer Review 28:466–481.

Hurd, Piyter. 2012. ‘‘Insurgent Technology: In WikiLeaks’ Wake.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 29:58–59.

Jordan, Tim and Paul Taylor. 1998. ‘‘A Sociology of Hackers.’’ The Sociological Review 46:757–780.

Lackoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Leigh, David. and Luke Harding. 2011. WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. New York: Public Affairs.

Leviathan. 2011. ‘‘Kill Switch.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 28:57–60.

Levy, Stephen. 1984. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Penguin Group Inc.

McKenzie, Jon. 1999. ‘‘!nt3rh4ckt!v!ty.’’ Style 33:283–299.

Meikle, Graham. 2002. Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet. New York: Routledge.

Mitnick, Kevin and William Simon. 2002. The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

———. 2011. Ghost in the Wires: My Adventures as the World’s Most Wanted Hacker. New York: Little, Brown and

Company.

Nichols, Randall, Daniel Ryan, and Julie Ryan. 2000. Defending your Digital Assets Against Hackers, Crackers, Spies,and Thieves. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. ‘‘Hackers and the Contested Ontology of Cyberspace.’’ New Media & Society 6:195–217.

Olson, Parmy. 2012. We are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber

Insurgency. New York: Little, Brown and Company.


OSIN. 2007. ‘‘Power Trip.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 24:6–8.

Pat, D. 2011. ‘‘Anonymity and the Internet in Canada.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 28:54.

Phocks. 2003. ‘‘A Glimpse at the Future of Computing.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 20:54–55.

The Prophet. 2002. ‘‘A New Era of Telecommunications Surveillance.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 19:23–25.

———. 2010. ‘‘Telecom Informer.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 27:13–14.

Samson, Alain. 2004. ‘‘Contradictions in Counter-Intuitive Beliefs and Naıve Dialecticism.’’ Journal of Cognition &

Culture 4:373–390.

Skibell, Reid. 2002. ‘‘The Myth of the Computer Hacker.’’ Information, Communication & Society 5:336–356.

Squealing Sheep. 2006. ‘‘The Price of Convenience: Our Identities.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 23:29–30.

Squire, Bill. 2007. ‘‘Hacker Perspective.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 24:26–29.

Stallman, Richard. 2002. Free Software Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston, MA: Free

Software Foundation, Inc.

Steinmetz, Kevin. 2012. ‘‘WikiLeaks and Realpolitik.’’ Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 4:14–52.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.

2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tant, Ed. 2004, June. ‘‘An Ocean of Resistance: An Interview with Howard Zinn.’’ Zmagazine. Retrieved August 17,

2012 from (http://www.zcommunications.org/an-ocean-of-resistance-by-ed-tant#).

Taylor, Paul. 2005. ‘‘From Hackers to Hacktivists: Speed Bumps on the Global Superhighway?’’ New Media & Society

7:625–646.

Thomas, Jim. 2005. ‘‘The Moral Ambiguity of Social Control in Cyberspace: A Retro-Assessment of the ‘Golden Age’

of Hacking.’’ New Media & Society 7:599–624.

Thompson, Samuel. 2006. ‘‘Helping the Hacker? Library Information, Security, and Social Engineering.’’ Information

Technology and Libraries 25:222–225.

Tokachu. 2006. ‘‘The Not-So-Great Firewall of China.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 23:58–60.

Toni-Sama. 2007. ‘‘VoIP Cellphones: The Call of the Future.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 24:48–49.

Turgeman-Goldschmidt, Orly. 2005. ‘‘Hackers’ Accounts: Hacking as a Social Entertainment.’’ Social Science

Computer Review 23:8–23.

———. 2011. ‘‘Identity Construction Among Hackers.’’ Pp. 31–51 in Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes

and Criminal Behavior, edited by K. Jaishankar. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Van Laer, Jeroen and Van Aelst Peter. 2010. ‘‘Cyber-Protest and Civil Society: The Internet and Action Repertoires in

Social Movements.’’ Pp. 230–254 in Handbook of Internet Crime, edited by Y. Jewkes and M. Yar. Portland, OR:

Willan Publishing, Inc.

Vold,George, ThomasBernard, andJeffreySnipes. 2002.TheoreticalCriminology.5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Warnick, Bryan. 2004. ‘‘Technological Metaphors and Moral Education: The Hacker Ethic and the Computational

Experience.’’ Studies in Philosophy and Education 23:265–281.

WillPC. 2007. ‘‘Darknets.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 24:15.

Woo, Hyung-jin, Yeora Kim, and Joseph Dominick. 2004. ‘‘Hackers: Militants or Merry Pranksters? A Content Analysis

of Defaced Web Pages.’’ Media Psychology 6:63–82.

Xen. 2006, Spring. ‘‘United Kingdom: The State of Surveillance.’’ 2600: The Hacker Quarterly 23:11–13.

KEVIN F. STEINMETZ is a Ph.D. candidate in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam

Houston State University. His research interests include critical theory, computer-mediated

deviance, political resistance, and field research.

JURG GERBER is a Professor of criminal justice and Director of International Initiatives in

the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. For the last twelve years he has

also served as Professeur Invite at the University of Lausanne (Lausanne, Switzerland) and he

spent academic year 2000=01 as a Fulbright Scholar at Kaliningrad State University, in

Kaliningrad, Russia. His research interests include white-collar crime, criminology, drug control

policy, and international criminal justice issues. He has co-edited two books on drug policy, one

on white-collar crime, and he has published extensively in all of the above areas.


Documents

“The Greatest Crime Syndicate since the Gambinos”: A Hacker Critique of Government, Law, and Law Enforcement