332 DEAR HACKER

332 DEAR HACKER

people say that in fact we don’t have the best system in the world, as we do, they are branded as traitors, utopian dreamers, and people who want to tear everything down, among other things. They are often told to leave if they don’t like it rather than stay and fight to make things better. The end result is that the things that really need to change continue not to change. And it’s that failure which will ulti- mately prove to be our downfall.

Dear 2600: I’ve been reading 2600 for quite some time now and I love the maga-

zine. It kicks ass, but I think you may be glorifying the hacker a little too much. If someone gains access to a computer and takes valuable data, that is a crime. Hackers go into things they shouldn’t using ex- ploits/tools much like a criminal opens a safe containing thousands of dollars worth of information. Information should be available to the public, but if people don’t want others to know about their works, then you should respect that. Instead, hackers are glorified by the mag for doing sh*t they shouldn’t be doing while spouting constitutional rights and liberalism. You’re right on many things, but saying that a hacker is not a criminal is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

chris s

It’s hard to imagine what exactly you find appealing about our magazine if you bear such animosity toward hackers. We will continue to say that hackers are not criminals because we happen to believe that—quite strongly, in fact. We would never deny that someone who invades privacy, trespasses, or intention- ally causes damage is committing a crime. This would apply to anyone including system administrators and corporate executives. But to assume that all hackers engage in illegal activity is naive at best. Those who do, however, should be judged by the actual severity of the crime, not by the fear of those who think that hackers are capable of all kinds of evil.

OUR BIGGEST FANS

Dear 2600: It’s only right that you lost the case. You publicized, you campaigned

for, and you advertised how to “pick” a DVD lock. If you know how to defeat a DVD lock, you go ahead and do that for yourself if you own DVDs. Don’t brag about it in school because, if you do, that would reveal your motivation: malice. Publicizing DVD circumvention does not benefit you. It only harms someone else. That’s why you lost and that’s why you won’t win on appeal. It’s your doggone motivation. And our laws deal with nuances of motivation. For example, our laws distinguish between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

I see two themes in letters about your case: “ free speech” and “edu- cational” reasons for having an intense interest in unlocking DVDs.

I don’t believe either is at work among your readers. Your readers just want the goods behind other people’s Kwikset locks. That’s called “thievery.”

You wanted to screw the international DVD conglomerate bastards. You wanted to kick them in the nuts for charging so much and for being