Feature:Distortions 181
Distortions
"We all know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we choose to distort it." -- Woody Allen
A couple of weeks ago, it was reported by Reuters News Agency that hackers had taken control of a British military satellite and demonstrated control of the "bird" by changing its orbit. The report said the hackers were blackmailing the British government, and unless they received a ransom, they would take action. The demonstration was frightening for those who were just waiting for a blatant act of cyber-terror.
A few days later, the Hacker News Network , an underground alternative to CNN, reported that the hijacking was bogus.
The Hacker News Network got it right while Reuters got it wrong.
Just as business managers increasingly supervise IT workers who know more about networks than they do, traditional news sources often cover subjects they don't understand, and they often get it wrong.
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for Forbes Digital on the unique culture of the professional Services Division of Secure Computing, where a number of former hackers help government agencies and large financial institutions secure their networks. Many articles have appeared recently about former hackers who have swapped underground lives for stock options, but that wasn't what my article was about. It was about the mindset that hackers bring to their work, a map or model of reality that is becoming the norm in a borderless world, where intelligence operatives are migrating into competitive intelligence in growing numbers. It's a mindset characterized, said one, by "paranoia appropriate to the real risks of open networks and a global economy."
Businesses used to decide on a course of action, then inform IT people so they could implement the plan. Now our thinking must move through the network that shapes it, not around it. The network itself - how it enables us to think, how it defines the questions that can be asked - determines the forms of possible strategies. So those who implement strategy must participate in setting strategy, not be added on after the fact, just as information security must be intrinsic to the architecture of an organizational structure, not added on as an afterthought.
The mind that designs the network designs the possibilities for human thinking and therefore for action.
Every single node in a network is a center from which both attack and defense can originate. The gray world in which hackers live has spilled over the edges which used to look more black and white. The skies of the digital world grow grayer day by day.
In that world, we are real birds fluttering about in digital cages. Images - icons, text, sound - define the "space" in which we move. If the cages are large enough, we have the illusion we are free and flying, when in fact we are moved in groups by the cages.
Example: to prevent insurrection during times of extreme civil unrest, government agencies created groups whose members were potentially dangerous, building a database of people they intended to collect if things fell apart. These days, many digital communities serve this purpose.
Example: Last week an FDIC spokesperson provided data on the readiness of American banks for Y2K. Tom Brokaw of NBC had recently announced, he said, that 33% of the banks weren't ready, but in fact, 96% of the banks are on schedule, 3 % are lagging a little, and only 1% are seriously behind. The biggest threat to the monetary system is a stampeding herd, spooked by the digital image of a talking head giving bogus information.
The digital world is a hall of mirrors, and the social construction of reality is big business, fueled by the explosion of the Internet, a marketplace where the buyer of ideas - as well as items at auction - had better beware.
This is not just about the distortion of facts by mainstream (or alternative) news media, nor the exploitation of fear because we know that fear sells. More and more, we are seeking and finding alternative sources of information from sources we believe we can trust. Believable truth must be linked to believable sources, or else we will make it up, pasting fears and hopes onto a blank screen or onto images built like bookshelves to receive our projections. Because we like to live on islands of agreement, receiving information that supports our current thinking, we live in thought worlds threaded on digital information that isolates and divides us. But the network is also the means of a larger communion and the discovery of a more unified, more comprehensive truth. We live on the edge of a digital blade, and the blade cuts both ways.
"We all know the same truth," said Woody Allen. "Our lives consist of how we choose to distort it."
Except Woody Allen didn't say it. Rather, he said it through the mouth of a character in "Deconstructing Harry" named Harry Block. Except Harry Block didn't say it either. He said it through the mouth of a character he created in the movie.
Hacking is a kind of deconstruction of the combinations and permutations available in a network. Deconstruction is essential in a digital world. The skills of critical thinking, the ability to integrate fragments and know how to build a Big Picture are more important than ever. Those skills are critical to hacking and securing networks and critical to understanding who is really who in a world in which people are not always what they seem.
Plato feared the emerging world of writing because anybody could say anything without accountability, but he did not foresee the emergence of tools to document and evaluate what was written. Our world may seem for the moment to be a-historical, fragmentary, multi-modal in relationship to the world of printed text, but something new is evolving - a matrix of understanding, a set of skills, a mindset that lets us sift through disinformation and use the same technology that lulls us to sleep to wake ourselves up.
Richard Thieme (www.thiemeworks.com) speaks, writes and consults on the human dimension of technology and the work place.
CT : So what do you think? Is he a keeper? Vote on the poll if you'd like to see this column each week on Slashdot. Of course, now that we have the customizable stuff, you'll be able to disable future Island's even if we do keep him.
Hacker vs. Cracker (Score:1)
PURPLE RULES! (Score:1)
"As fun as I'm sure it would be, I can't let you space your Green comrades." --Garibaldi
It's only my opinion. (Score:1)
Example: From a purely logical perspective, the words "and" and "but" are synonymous. But in the casual vernacular, their connotations are almost opposite.
Keep him (Score:1)
A Thought. (Score:1)
I sent him an email one time (because he claims to read and reply to all his email), explaining to him, as calmly and rationally as I could, why it was that so many Slashdot readers have such a big problem with him - not flaming him (or trying not to), just saying, "Look, this is what you're doing that they don't like, and here are the cultural reasons why..." The response I got back indicated that he a) didn't understand any of the points I brought up, and b) didn't think the personal opinion of one Slashdot reader was relevant (and I'd tried to avoid inserting my personal opinion if at all possible, limiting myself to broad coverage of what I've seen dozens or hundreds of people saying). I started writing a response to clarify the points he missed, came to the realization that I was simply restating my previous email because he'd blatently missed _all_ of my points, and gave it up as a bad job.
All of which is to say: I think we might as well throw Katz back... he isn't learning anything. On the contrary, that bit about the sexbots was the most ridiculous piece of tripe I've seen make it to Slashdot's front page. I wouldn't even know where to *begin* to constructively criticize _that_ rot.
Not bad. (Score:1)
There- good summary? Hopefully it's a bit clearer than the actual article. It's a good article at bottom- that is why computer hackers can be more plugged in to reality than the mainstream media- and it also gives a bit of insight on why so many hackers are infuriated by vague ideamongering and confusion, as seen in some of the responses to Op/Ed pieces on slashdot itself. Hackers can react to muddying of their concept-spaces as if physically threatened- what they do requires that they understand how things work, and it's not an option for them to float merrily about in vague notions of philosophical meaninglessness.
I too feel that I could write essays for slashdot- however, I figure it's not slashdot's job to legitimise me, so I've put mine up elsewhere. My URL is the site where I keep my stuff, and if you go to the Essays section, that's where you'll find my essays. I try to have them present a coherent picture of reality- that's what they're for
I'm saying yes to this new writer- largely because he is writing about ideas in places where Katz basically wrote about himself. I figure I can get through the verbiage to the ideas, and there will actually be something there. I look forward to his next essay.
Cracking != script kiddies, IDIOT!!!! (Score:1)
Script kiddies are the talentless self-described "hackers" who use programs or scripts they downloaded to break into other computers, usually to cause damage. Also known as "hax0rs" or "hax0r d00ds," in an interesting case of using their own 3l33t-sp34k to mock them. The various web-page "hacker" groups would fall into this category.
Those who actually discover security holes in software are indeed "hackers," in their case, the term is applied correctly. L0pht Heavy Industries and the Cult of the Dead Cow would fall into this category.
Keep 'im (Score:1)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
"The skies of the digital world grow grayer day by day.
In that world, we are real birds fluttering about in digital cages.
The digital world is a hall of mirrors,
We live on the edge of a digital blade, and the blade cuts both ways. "
...Apart from an overuse of metaphor... And what seems to be a destinct desire to be unclear... He has some intersting ideas.... Unfortunately he obscured the synthesis of his disjoint points with an overbearing literary style. A philosphy major at some point, no doubt.
The greatest thing about the new customizable
Keep, but allow filtering (Score:1)
I went to my preferences page and found I had no option to kill him off. Please allow me to do this. I HATE pseudo-intellectual "techno"-journalists.
keep him (Score:1)
I say sign him up!
If you don't like it,turn on your internal or
your
Sorry, but that was pretty bad (Score:1)
In the first place it was kind of hard to figure out what he was trying to say. Did he have a point to make? There was some junk about the net becoming more important at the start, and techies getting increased power (which is not really true, imho) but then he just started- well- rambling. The last 5 paragraphs were painful.
Someone earlier mentioned something to the extent that he was spoiled on howto's and O'reily prose. Well, I think good writing should be a lot like that- something easy to read. I don't mean trite or illeterate, I mean Earnest Hemingway or O'Henry prose. When I read an essay or novel by a good and relatively contemporary (otherwise changes in language usage interfere) author there is no effort involved- I don't have to try and unravel convoluted sentances and paragraphs.
this was not the case here
Mixed feelings (Score:1)
On one hand, I think one talking head was too many for Slashdot. This is a great news forum, but if every struggling semi-computer-literate journalist can post silly Katzian articles here, the signal-to-noise unbalance will start driving people off. As long as the editorial pieces stay reasonably rare, it should be OK. (And the customizable slashdot feature kicks major booty, if I do say so myself!)
On the other hand, this guy isn't as bad as Katz. (I know Jon means well, but he's still rather purple and content-free, IMHO.) Apart from a few laughably top-heavy metaphors ("digital blade?" whatever...), this is pretty lucid.
I propose a probationary period. We let him keep posting, for now... but if he ever again posts an article which confuses "hacker" and "cracker" as cluelessly as this one, we kick him out and mail a dead cat to his house.
All in favor?
I liked it until.... (Score:1)
I have to agree, he had me interested at first, then started spewing the buzzword crap and I got bored.
Give him a chance, and then let's vote again later (Score:1)
He only mentions himself in a Katzian self-aggrandizing
way once, so that's a good start.
Plus he uses the word "deconstruction" without
its constant companion, "overdetermination", which
is also good.
On the other hand, he gets to the end of the article
without actually saying anything.
So it's impossible to tell if he's going to start
adding content, or start adding Katzinan self-aggrandizement,
or what.
Let's see some more, without the annoying links
to his Terribly Important Other Stories in
Terribly Important mainstream magazines that
many of us don't give a hoot about.
-jqb
Bring 'em on!!! (Score:1)
Just be sure he's got his flame-proof suit on because all those flame-throwing ACs are just rarin' to go!!
Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools
of thought contend... -- MaoZeDong (just before he started purging all those "revisionists" who did'nt agree with him
Better than Katz... (Score:1)
--
anachronistic difference ... accept its demise (Score:1)
Better still, drill it into peoples' heads that there are two types of "hacker", not necessarily mutually exclusive. The illuminati of l0pht.com and similar, for example, are both, at least as far as Joe Sixpack can tell.
Revel in the idiosyncracies of human language.
Space-time allocation? (Score:1)
Put the op-ed pieces up on the weekends. Saturdays and Sundays tend to be very quiet, for the most part, and it's more likely that people would be receptive to lengthier, more reflective pieces when they aren't trying to squeeze their
Consider it like a "Sunday Edition" of Slashdot - more in-depth articles, op-ed, and now we have links to the Sunday funnies! Something you can enjoy with a cup of coffee without having to rush through it.
Thoughts?
Pot vs. Kettle, jargon-wise. (Score:1)
Come on, man, if you don't like what the guy has to say, address what he's saying, don't just rip into what you view as trite deconstructionist jargon .
I honestly didn't care much for the article, because it was poorly constructed (from an English-major standpoint) and tried to do too much , thereby losing its focus. But some of the ideas themselves were valid and well worth considering.
Keep him - why not? (Score:1)
Better than Katz (Score:1)
I am a long-time anti-Katz-er. I think this guy is better, both in terms of writing mechanics (if there were any dorky spelling errors, I missed them) and in terms of prose quality (shorter, creative without being tedious). I also think the bit about networks constraining/defining our possible modes of action was an insight beyond what Katz could come up with. But it wasn't exactly Claude Shannon or anything. :^P
Now that we have customizable front pages, I say keep him, and Katz too. I personally do not filter Katz, because I just have to read his articles every time (makes me feel better about myself), and I will not filter this column, either.
No Subject Given (Score:1)
I like that line. The rest are so-so.
If he's a good journalist, he'll adapt to his audience. If he's not, we'll stop reading his stuff.
That's the best part about the new journalistic model that is being created here on
Don Negro
Can someone please explain.... (Score:1)
The more enlightened of the suits (or those freshly back from leadership-training seminars) read sites like this to try and get a clue what the employees think. If they read someone who's published [sounds of angelic choir] in Forbes Digital [86 heavenly host glee club] and he says that they should ask their IT employees about network strategy before dictating it, then there's a small chance that it actually might happen.
And that'd be a good thing for all of us.
Don Negro
Great Nick, my friend... (Score:1)
Don Negro
It's only my opinion. (Score:1)
Just give me the information and let the newbies have the pretty prose.
Still though. He's a better writer than I am and I'm glad to see Slashdot getting some solid writers.
Keep him on. I'm fully capable of choosing what I read or don't read.
One more, who´s next? (Score:1)
Hey, the man cant distinguisg crackers from hackers, does he belong here?
Cmon, writing in
A Thought. (Score:1)
See, before I read these guys, I thought that you actually had to be good at it to have anyone read what you wrote. Not so! Just throw out vaguely interesting concepts, sprinkle buzzwords on top, and then totally fail to develop the idea to anything meaningful.
I can do that. I can do that _better_ than these guys can. Look for my next book "Deconstructing Geek Hackers, on the Mountain" in fine bookstores everywhere.
Sheesh. I just want to make it clear that I'm only voting to keep these guys for two basic reasons. One, I think they really, really need criticism and practice to improve their writing; slashdot is good for that. Two, filtering them out has recently become real simple, so if I just get completely tired of reading stuff from this guy, I can remove him from what I see.
keep him (Score:1)
looks good to me (Score:1)
I think there is room for op-ed pieces on
So, go for it I say.
ex distortions (Score:1)
- Randy
My two fav tech writers: Katz and Thieme (Score:1)
Keep him. Definitely.
undecided (Score:1)
ambivalent
purple?
Writes well; hope other columns more interesting (Score:1)
I do want to see more of his work in the future.
Misconceptions (Score:1)
I'd like to believe that cluelessness is transient. The future I work for is a future filled with slightly-clueful people, people who know the difference between a hacker and a cracker. Maybe even Ted Koppel will one day understand the communications society we've evolved.
The article's paranoia of ignorance and government maliciousness is unseemly. The government is not clueful enough to use the digital realm against us-- even the groups savvy enough (NSA) to cull useful information from the 'net don't have the manpower to do anything with it. They barely have the power to take out people like Kevin Mitnick.
And ignorance is a passing fad. I hope.
-Tony
I wouldn't mind it (Score:1)
If all else fails... (Score:1)
Apart from that he seems to be ok. So keep him.
At least he has a clue. (Score:1)
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Totally content-free ramblings (Score:1)
Space-time allocation? (Score:1)
Hacker vs. Cracker (Score:1)
I think that Eric Raymond has always gotten this one wrong too. If you reverse engineer software for the purpose of making keygens or to find out where to change a JZ to a JNZ, you are a cracker. The name makes sense.
If, OTOH you try to break into systems where your grubby hands don't belong, you are, some what unfortunately, a hacker.
They are two different things that need different names. Until another name is invented for a hacker, you'll just have to live with it. Hell, just call yourself a programmer.
(Good writing)*(good thinking)=Yes (Score:1)
I like it. He flatters his readers just enough to get 'em to pay attention, then makes paying attention worth it.
Katz flatters poorly and too much, and doesn't make it worth it. He has potential, though.
Both of these guys need to test and refine their ideas, and this is a perfect place to do it.
Another point of view (Score:1)
Yeah keep him! (Score:1)
CP
Metaphors upon metaphors (Score:1)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
Ditch him... (Score:1)
ditto (Score:1)
Metaphors upon metaphors (Score:1)
--I still say keep him.
Christopher A. Bohn
Like Freff (Score:1)
This guy looks like a keeper. What's Stan Kelly-Bootle up to? Maybe add him too...
Digital Birdcage (Score:1)
Katz a tech writer? (Score:1)
If I filter Katz, how can I flame him? (Score:1)
I like the Sunday Slashdot idea (or even Saturday).
I am curious as to whether this guy is here because he got run off from wherever he was writing before.
Perhaps we could keep him and Katz on condition that they edit each other. That should produce some interesting results.
I loved it. It was much better than Katz. (Score:1)
Schwab
Hacker vs. Cracker (Score:1)
The same forum? (Score:1)
Yeah, sure, keep him. Believe it or not, after this first installment, I prefer Katz.
Keep him, if... (Score:1)
Columnists in General (Score:1)
I like him (Score:1)
Keep him.
Filtering is a Good Thing. (Score:1)
blah blah blah (Score:1)
obfuscation (Score:1)
doesn't sound like philosophy to me (Score:1)
Disclaimer: CompSci major doing doctoral work at a philosophy department - any bias is my own fault.
Helping communities to communicate (Score:1)
Keep him.
Heh - You are wrong (Score:1)
So you generally do spend more time designing than actually implementing software.
> (that is...if you even program).
Deconstruction? (Score:1)
'Deconstruction' != 'taking apart'
But I read it again, and, although I suspect he doesn't even know it, he did sort of get the idea right. In the first two sentences at least. The method of deconstruction is indeed very much like a litererary version of an IP-spoofing attack. The idea is to take a central metaphor or comparison in the work in question, and see how it can become unstable, through different readings, different meanings of the words, etc. Much like a supposedly "priveleged" host can be taken over by a "trusted" subordinate machine (which is of course being spoofed by a totally different machine, the "supplement" in deconstructo-speak). So bravo for this point, which is a new one on me.
The next sentence, of course goes on to provide evidence that he has no idea what he just said, with all that blather about the big picture, which is pretty much the opposite of what deconstruction is about, and hacking, for that matter. PHB's are the people who see the "big picture". That's what they're there for. New-critics, Marxist critics, Feminists... in the world of words, these are the PHB's; the big-picture types. And thus, he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
I say keep, but then again, I don't feel like I have much right to tell Rob what to put here anyway. I just wanted to bitch about the world's lack of understanding of, and continuous perverse need to misuse, deconstruction.
P.S. Sorry about all the "quotes". It's hard to restrain myself when I get writing about deconstruction :-)
----------------------
Writing for an audience (Score:1)
Whilst I do enjoy articles on something other than kernel update 2.2.3ac93, Katz and this new guy don't seem to be able to apply this rule. In my experience, the hacker audience has the following characteristics:
So, IMHO, if the less-technical writers who want to write here would like a more friendly response, they should take steps to address these points. As a starting point and an excellent introduction to hacker culture (though not, of course, a be-all and end-all), why don't they have a look at The Jargon File? [tuxedo.org]?
ex distortions (Score:1)
Katz Part Deux (Score:1)
Its not that they aren't good wirters, its just that they don't have anything interestin to write about.
This forum is turning into web show-and-tell for every amateur hack out there.
We were asked for our opinions. (Score:1)
To say you can't critique someone's essay (even though Rob's post explicitly asked for comments) unless you post one yourself is moronic.
You've never run for President, so I guess you can't comment on Clinton.
Ease up and open your mind! (Score:1)
Well how would I go about "substantiating" the fact that I simply don't like his article? What do you want a reference to? Perhaps the IETF can cobble up some RFC for "Gut Feelings" that I can point to to make you feel better.
I can't say it any more elegantly than you are a retard.
I am offended. (Score:1)
damon
I laughed, I cried... (Score:1)
...It was better than Katz.
Distortions, such as the reply column ;) (Score:1)
I like the new guy. Indeed, apparently quite a few people like the new guy. I would assume the folks who are making snide comments voted in the poll along with everybody else. The overwhelming majority of the voters, so far, seem to want to keep him. The usual batch of flamers explains why this is a terrible idea. It's pretty funny.
Slashdot != Wired (Score:1)
An anonymous flamer wrote: Actually, to judge from the people who bothered to vote, you are in a minority position. Somebody does care. The overwhelming majority voted to keep the new writer.
It's funny how the people who are most willing to speak for everyone else are least equipped to do so.
Not I... (Score:1)
Dump him (Score:1)
The quality of his thesis is better than the quality of his prose. This man needs a tough, competent editor: with a little ego-deflation this article would be very good. But I don't see Slashdot as a literary forum and, no offense Rob, I am not sure any of "us geeks" are qualified to be that tough, competent editor.
Interesting point of view. (Score:1)
As far as the Katz haters, I understand that he is trying to evangelize his works and that he is in fact "preaching to the choir." I didn't get a sense of evangelism from this one, so time will only tell if he will demean himself to that level. The general sense though around here is that we're geeks and we don't need preachy effects in articles, just plain, hard facts and numbers. We like those.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
PsychoSpunk
And the last time you contributed a column was... (Score:1)
NEVER?????
If the contributions are so poor here on Slashdot, please...enlighten us. Show us the way.
we don't need another person's opinions (Score:1)
Metaphors upon metaphors (Score:1)
-lx
PURPLE RULES! (Score:1)
I dig it. (Score:1)
. . . but I'm not sure that Slashdot ought to be in the business of allocating cosmic resources like space and time. There could be, like, billions and billions of problems.
-j
We don't need this guy. (Score:1)
When he learns to piss people off the way Katz does, I'll reconsider, but right now I don't see him engendering enough mindless animosity to justify his presence.
With my threshold firmly at -9,
-j
Hmmmm ... (Score:1)
From the polling blurb:
"This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important- you're insane."
So is the decision whether or not to add a new columnist an unimportant decision, or an insane one?
The noise level is tremendous. (Score:1)
One really nice thing about that vote button is that lurkers count. I think there's a few people here who think that the loudest person should win, which is a problem common to all online discussion forums -- not just
I am offended. (Score:1)
Until this guy gets a clue, please don't post anymore of his articles.
OK but he must first.. (Score:1)
TA
we don't need another person's opinions (Score:1)
Totally content-free ramblings (Score:1)
Dump this guy.
Oh NO! More actual CONTENT. No! No! No! (Score:1)
Anything that raises the Slashdot Quotient (abbreviation:
What's the
Aggregate Content
-----------------
Annoying Drivel
-------
Reading this Twice (Score:1)
Not bad (Score:1)
Uh, I missed something (Score:1)
Keep and compress him (Score:1)
Related Links Problem? (Score:1)
Decent (Score:1)
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
A wee bit heady for me. (Score:1)
Good Idea. (Score:1)
I would guess the Katz-flamers are gonna toast this guy as well. Can CT find some way to group them together? throw them a side-box?
Keep him or not... (Score:1)
This first article suffered from lack of brevity. Although it can be challenging to do so, with some reorganization and editing, my belief is that he probably could have made the same points with about 60% of the words.
In other words (lousy /. pun warning) SLASH out the fat, and keep the thoughts right on the "."