Where have all the hackers gone?

There’s a huge component of this that’s worth recognizing:

—

The current legal landscape and lack of anonymity makes most hacking a non-starter

—

In the early days someone could explore really far as long as they didn’t call up a government agency or try to steal property. They could play pranks, hook up Rube-Goldberg call chains that circumnavigated the planet, break apart any hardware they owned and assemble it in to anything else, dig in to the binary of any file on a computer, rip apart the memory of any process, post the results in a magazine or even collaborate openly online.

And most of the world had no idea. The only time they got in trouble was when authorities saw something they didn’t like and even then most of the time they had no laws to leverage (there are some significant notable examples that got the book thrown at them but those were outliers).

Now?

Now you can be retroactively targeted for making an emulator for a decades-old game system.

Or sharing a single piece of copyrighted content.

Or getting close breaking to the DMCA.

Or (insert wacky future laws here).

The risk is extremely high and the rules are way too thorny. Working for a company means you’re going to have clear guidelines about what you can and can’t use and therefore protection from the worst of the legal minefield that is the US. It also means you have a cushion for if/when you’re targeted.

Does anyone know how many true hackers are growing up right now who have already taken their first steps at learning and who have had their posts wiped from the internet or their inboxes “graced” with cease and desist letters (or worse), or their accounts outright terminated? I don’t think there even is a way to know.

How many of those kids would be crazy enough to keep being public, and how many of those would learn enough through private self-discovery that they can significantly contribute to the hacking scene as adults?

Yes, late 50s. I was introduced to computers when I was about 10 by a hacker who took me (and a few other kids as a group) to play with a mainframe computer every couple of weeks. Since all of us kids were from very, very poor families, this was a particularly incredible opportunity that I didn't fully appreciate until I was an adult.

> These are the adults who put together programs for us and wooed our parents with talks about how participating would set us up in life and whose advice all seemed to center around our ambitions rather than our joys.

I remember seeing that as well. It bothered me a great deal at the time. That sort of thing is career guidance, not encouraging exploration, play, and deep learning.

> It's harder to interact with strangers' children now and we're far more risk averse so mentorship in the old way is a huge risk for the older person.

This is absolutely true, but was a factor when I was a kid as well. The guy who took us to play with the mainframe knew us because he was a teacher in an afterschool latchkey program -- so he wasn't an unknown to our parents.

My daughter (who's just a couple of years younger than you) was the volunteer coordinator at the local science museum. The museum had many programs for young children to teach them various sciency things. Perhaps the way I can give back is to go through them. Maybe start a "hacking program" or something. Seems better than just being a random creepy old guy befriending young children.

Thank you for this discussion, by the way. You may (or may not) have been rambling, but your comments sparked a lot in my brain, brought me a bit of enlightenment, and you have planted a few seeds.

Some things to consider are:

- The age matters. As late as 2000 (so kids born in 1995 who still aren't 30), 25% of 5 year olds used the Internet. At all. And an 'internet user' was usually defined with a minimum of once a week (or even rarer) usage. Not enough to really shape your worldview or how you approach problems.

- Most young (early elementary or younger) kids with internet access pre 1997 would only have it at school. These conditions meant most of the children in this age group would have had very close, direct adult supervision the entire time, which prevents it from being a part of a digital childhood since a digital childhood requires making decisions and acting online.

- To be an early adopter of the Internet at the time as a young child required literacy skills years ahead of your peers. In addition, you needed home computer access and the ability/permission to use it independently. To be so into it that you did enough of your socializing online to assimilate this new method of communicating into your core social programming also meant you needed to possess one of the few interests that the Web at the time was useful for. (I really liked anime, astronomy, video games, and programming so I spent a lot of time online).

Basically a lot of people in their 30s used the Internet before the age of 18, but not often enough at a young enough age for it to have really embedded it as fundamental in the same way. For that I think there's a critical period/age limit of about 7. To use the web between 93 (first home access) and 97 that young required skills/intelligence (literacy being the big one, but also simple things like 'hand eye coordination to deal with old mice' and 'knowledge of how to use a browser' that seem second nature now but when you're 6 with zero experience can be substantial), parents with the wealth and interest to have a home computer, and parents that would let you use said home computer for your own purposes/independently. (As opposed to now where everybody hands their kid a phone). The combination of ability, access, and freedom was rare.

I think a lot of people in their 30s and 40s are sort of in between: They're proficient but it's still learned, not hard wired/unconscious the way it is for those of us who were exposed very young. It's the difference between a habit and an ingrained physical task like walking.

In terms of why it matters, some examples of differences I'd consider are:

* Internalizing that independent authorities exist that you can contact that are outside of your adults' sphere of influence. Or read, or watch, etc.

* Internalizing that information is/should be available in your home/private spaces instead of it being something you had to physically seek out.

* Conceiving of ignorance as rude/willful by default instead of innocuous.

tl;dr: Lots of 80s and 90s kids online once in a while and at older ages, very few truly embedded in it the way kids are now due to resource and skill gates that have since been removed (you can use an iPhone without knowing how to read and there's a lot of multimedia online now + most kids can get their hands on a phone).

It's interesting having been early and poor (or relatively so), isn't it? We had a computer because my parents were horribly irresponsible and did things like starve themselves and fake weighing enough to give plasma to get money for tech. Grocery budget? Warm coats for our children when we live in MI? NO. Shit food and 10 dollar coats that do nothing. But computers! And we will have sleep for dinner before we cut the amount of Internet hours we pay for!

I was lucky enough to have been born into a hacker family, I can't imagine I'd have had access otherwise since we were rural, poorish, and I was a girl. It definitely made me aware of class issues at a young age.

> That sort of thing is career guidance, not encouraging exploration, play, and deep learning.

Given that making money online wasn't a normal thing at the time, it wasn't even career guidance because none of them knew what a career in Web technologies would look like. It was outright Machiavellian: Cozy up to the kids, see which of them might accept your help to build something, and wait for them to have an idea you think is commercially viable and then swoop in to be on the ground floor. A lot of fake interest in you, a lot of fake emotion. But yes, now it's very much career guidance. "Maximize your earning potential!"

> The guy who took us to play with the mainframe knew us because he was a teacher in an afterschool latchkey program -- so he wasn't an unknown to our parents.

That's part of what makes it harder: The people with tech skills aren't in schools showing 10 year olds around. They aren't doing what my mom did and going to the local elementary school so the 6 year olds can learn to use the computers (because none of the teachers knew how so if the kids wanted lab time, they needed a competent adult and my mom was it). They're on the career ladder, and time spent on intangibles like 'growing community' and 'planting trees whose shade you'll never sit in' will not get you promoted. Nobody who can code now is encouraged to go into teaching. So those connections and those lay experts who held the cultural knowledge so the geniuses could concentrate solely on the work are gone. No teacher messing with a mainframe: The school district contracts out its tech to outside companies whose workers never interact with the children and wouldn't be trusted with them.

> Perhaps the way I can give back is to go through them. Maybe start a "hacking program" or something. Seems better than just being a random creepy old guy befriending young children.

You might want to check out your local library as well.

> Thank you for this discussion, by the way. You may (or may not) have been rambling, but your comments sparked a lot in my brain, brought me a bit of enlightenment, and you have planted a few seeds.

I'm so glad! I feel likewise: I've very much enjoyed this conversation, especially since I often feel crazy. I think we need to decouple our cultural insights from specific tech skills and teach them to everybody. Not everybody can code, but my family is full of non-coders who can still utilize systems-thinking to help them navigate the world and who have good trouble-shooting heuristics. A bonus to this would be that parents could identify hacker children much like they can other types of talent such as athletic ability.