Licenced to Program?

[Jei]

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8145809.html?tag=tp_pr

Enough already! Ban programming.
@ Articles     Dec 16 2001 - 02:54 EST 
acideye writes:  


No I don't agree with or endorse in any way this statement, but to anyone
who would like an insight into the minds (often closed minds) of the
general public who have been manipulated by the mass media into almost
decleration of war on Hackers and other such sub-cultures of hacking. 
This article is from Adequacy.org and as such copyright and the rest of
it. 


Programming computers is, for practically everyone, something done far
away in exotic software engineering facilities by a priesthood of
ultra-specialized, half-mad obsessive-compulsives. This is as it should
be, and it is where we get the software we use every day to do our online
banking, send email, and get productive work done. Though few normal
people have any experience of it, or know anyone who does it, there is
another kind of programming performed outside this legitimate sphere, one
that you probably assumed was illegal, but shockingly, is not. 
This other kind of programming also affects us every day, but negatively,
as a continuous series of massive disruptions to the worldwide economy in
the form of viruses, in the form of important and useful computer services
being sabotaged with denial-of-service, in the form of defacement attacks,
and in the form of substantially higher prices for all sorts of
intellectual property such as software, DVD movies and music on CD, all
due to piracy. I'm talking about "hacking" of course. It is the evil dark
side to all the good that computers have brought us, and we are all sick
of it. The time has come to put a stop to "hacking", because we can no
longer tolerate the damage "hackers" cause, and the potential risk of
terrorism when, not if, "hackers" go to work for such forces of mayhem as
have begun an onslaught of terror against not just the United States, but
Western Civilization's freedom to be loose and decadent in general. 

For a time, our society tolerated "hackers" because they promised that
something useful would come of their shady and secretive tinkering. Yet we
have had nothing but a harvest of bitter fruit from "hackers", and it is
now time to pull the plug. It is time to ban all unlicensed computer
programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government,
select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate
software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means
to write or compile computer code of any kind. Amateur or hobbyist
computer programming has grown from a minor annoyance to a major social
disease, and it simply can no longer be tolerated. 
Although ordinary decent people will find this suggestion to be obvious to
the point of banality -- in fact, I'm sure many of you are surprised that
amateur computer programming was ever legal! -- many of those who
associate themselves with the "hacker community" will bridle at the
suggestion. Strictly as an exercise, it would perhaps be diverting to
entertain some of their more obvious objections. 

The first cry in defense of hobbyists toying with this dangerous
technology is that hackers have already proven their worth by producing a
valuable piece of software -- namely, the Apache web server. Others would
even claim that more than one useful program has been written in the
garages and and lonely bedrooms of hobbyists. There are two delusions at
work here. 

One of these delusions is that any of the Open Source applications that
have found some utility in business and industry were written by amateurs.
The truth is that Apache began it's life as the work of professional
coders employed by Amazon.com, and as any software engineer you want to
ask can tell you, nothing of value was added by anyone but professionals.
In truth, the work of the gainfully employed programmers on this project
was often interrupted and even sabotaged by the ham-fisted meddling of the
teenage wanna-be's and self-styled "gurus" who have accumulated around
professional Open Source projects like so many leeches and barnacles. This
episode alone demonstrates that if there is anything good to come out of
Open Source methodology, it will only be helped along by the removal of
dilettantes from the picture. Indeed, once the "hackers" have been
outlawed, Open Source will very likely reach new heights of utility and
quality, and perhaps even fulfill the promise of greatness that Open
Source advocates have been making for years. 

The other delusion, or I should say piece of misinformation, that has been
perpetrated by "hackers" is that there are many other "tools" that have
been created by hackers and gifted to a grateful world by our benevolent
hobbyists. What about Emacs, for example? What about it? Emacs was
originally created at MIT, a trusted part of the US military research
establishment. Obviously, such facilities and their (suitably cleared)
employees will never be banned. The time has come to ban the reckless
tourists from the programming field, not legitimate university
researchers. It is true that Emacs, and similar tools have subsequently
been "enhanced" by "hackers". Generally, we have seen a pattern of
mind-boggling feature creep and software bloat as a result of this. Emacs,
for all its admirers, is the worst known example of this. In addition, all
of the "functionality" that has been added to Emacs, or other "tools"
touted by free software hackers such as Flex, Bison, gcc, etc. are
hacker's tools. That means that they are like lock picks or zip guns. They
have no inherent functionality that is not ultimately malevolent and
illegal in its purpose. This is not utility or service. This is
disservice. 

The reason that hobbyists work so feverishly hard on creating this kind of
tool is precisely because they are locked out of the world of the normal,
decent software engineer, where professional-grade IDEs, debuggers, and
similar tools are abundant. Those with ultimately criminal intent must
cobble together their own weapons. There are dozens, even hundreds of
these types of destructive programs in circulation, such as those
mentioned, as well as the notorious "Back Orifice", or the hacker
operating system, "Lunix". While a "hacker" could disingenuously and
spuriously argue that each one of these various illegal programs has some
redeeming social value, it is clear that taken as a whole, such "warez" do
not in fact benefit anyone except "hackers" and other criminals. 

Rather than waste any more time tediously demonstrating this fact for each
of these "hacker's" tools, it would be best to move on to the other canard
that "hackers" raise in defense of their "freedom" to "hack". And that
would be freedom itself. Is there a right to "hack"? Well, of course there
most certainly is not. Is there a right to build atomic bombs or breed
anthrax bacilli in one's back yard? Is there a right to spy on your
government and pass on that information to our foreign enemies, merely
because you have chosen espionage as a "hobby"? Perhaps you could claim
that your interest in espionage is driven by an innate curiosity, a desire
to discover new things and understand how the world works. And so what?
Such apologetics are amusing coming from children, but to hear an adult
make such excuses is not funny at all. It is merely sad. 

Few precocious adolescent "hackers" are capable of understanding why
responsible nations must ban "hacking", but as adults we can all recognize
that these apologetics for hobbyist "hacking" carry no weight at all, and
so we must do what is right. If you style yourself a "hacker" and you
really want to play around with dangerous toys, be it source code,
fissionable material, or biotoxins, then you have only one route open to
you: go to college and prove that you really have the mental horsepower to
cut the mustard, and prove also that you are a loyal patriot who can be
trusted with potentially deadly power. Then, and only then, will a decent
society trust you with the secrets of our most awesome technology. Those
too impatient to wait, too dull to get into a university, and too flaky to
get security clearance due to low character, drug abuse, and trafficking
with unsavory characters are simply out of luck. And it's a good thing
too. 

Is it practical to ban "hacking" now? 

Absolutely. There is no better time than now. As we have seen by the
recent mass murders by terrorists, computer technology is a mainstay of
criminals, and they rely most on such "free" tools as text editors and
military-grade encryption programs that "hackers" use simply because they
think it is cute to play with such power. But the rest of society has lost
patience with this childish diddling, and the civilized world has said
unequivocally that we want strong legal safeguards enacted to put an end
to "hacking" and terrorism. We most especially have no qualms about
banning activities like playing with explosives or creating software when
these so-called "hobbies" are restricted to a tiny fringe element who for
whatever reason gets no pleasure from healthy pastimes like fly fishing or
drinking alcohol at gentlemen's clubs. 

Put simply, normal folks are not going to let themselves get blown up
because a tiny minority of freaks like to "hack". If you aren't willing to
code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all. 

Author's note: Since it is likely that many so-called g**ks or "hackers"
will read this article and will perhaps become angry about it, and then,
typically, lose control of their anger, I want to this opportunity to ask
them to please refrain from attacking Adequacy.org in retaliation. Though
you might disagree with an opinion that you read, that is no reason to
launch a denial of service attack against the medium. Please use your
reason and, if you feel strongly, engage in a polite dialogue, rather than
acting out your anger with illegal "hacking" attacks. Thank you for not
attacking this web site.

read comments (62) | write comment