Luke Robert Mason: You’re lis­ten­ing to the Futures Podcast with me, Luke Robert Mason.

On this episode, I speak to human rights activist Maureen Webb and alleged hack­er Lauri Love.

Hacking, orig­i­nal­ly, is a tech­ni­cal prac­tice. It’s an ethos of tech­nol­o­gists, but it’s increas­ing­ly becom­ing a metaphor for a new kind of social activism, which is all about dis­trib­uted democ­ra­cy, dis­trib­uted pow­er, dis­trib­uted deci­sion mak­ing.
Maureen Webb, excerpt from inter­view.

Maureen and Lauri shared their insights into the rela­tion­ship between hack­ing and polit­i­cal activism, the dan­gers of gov­ern­ment and pri­vate sec­tor sur­veil­lance, and how hack­ers are rebuild­ing soci­ety by chal­leng­ing the sta­tus quo.

This episode is an edit­ed ver­sion of a recent live stream event. You can view the full unedit­ed video of this con­ver­sa­tion at Futures Podcast dot net.

Luke Robert Mason: Now hack­ers have a bad rep­u­ta­tion. But hack­ing has become a vital prac­tice in the new wave of activism, in which ordi­nary cit­i­zens work to rein­vent democ­ra­cy for a dig­i­tal era. Hacking has been char­ac­terised as an artis­tic prac­tice, as a prac­ti­cal tool, and some­times even as a crim­i­nal activ­i­ty. But regard­less of the moti­va­tions, those doing the hack­ing are all too often mis­un­der­stood and mis­rep­re­sent­ed.

In her new book, Coding Democracy: How Hackers are Disrupting Power, Surveillance and Authoritarianism, author Maureen Webb argues pas­sion­ate­ly for our need to bet­ter under­stand the prac­tices and the motives of hack­ers. It is a deep dive into their per­son­al­i­ty, their pol­i­tics and the var­ied moti­va­tions behind their work. Lauri Love is a per­fect exam­ple of the sort of hack­er that Maureen pro­files. Previously want­ed by the United States for his alleged activ­i­ties with the hack­er col­lec­tive Anonymous, Lauri has become a pas­sion­ate advo­cate for the use of hack­ing as a form of activism. But to kick off this con­ver­sa­tion I want­ed to turn to you, Maureen. I want to ask you, what caused you to write this book on hack­ing?

Maureen Webb: Well, I’m a con­sti­tu­tion­al lawyer and a labour lawyer, a civ­il lib­er­tar­i­an. And my first book was about the growth of mass sur­veil­lance after the events of 911. So I’d writ­ten a book called Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-911 World. After the Snowden leaks, my edi­tor from City Lights sug­gest­ed that I write a book about hackers—a sub­ject which I knew lit­tle about. So I began this Odyssey, which lit­er­al­ly I…I wrote this book over four years. I start­ed at the Chaos Computer Club, the camp that they put on every four years, in 2015 in Germany. It was a real Odyssey. I trav­elled to Germany and then to Spain, where I inter­viewed a hack­tivist group called Xnet. I went to Italy and talked to par­lia­men­tar­i­ans from the tʃiŋk­we ˈstelle move­ment, and I trav­elled to San Francisco and spoke with lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and end­ed up in Boston speak­ing to aca­d­e­mics at MIT and Harvard, who have real­ly start­ed to main­stream hack­er ideas and hack­er exper­i­ments.

Mason: Now your back­ground is as a Labour lawyer. I just won­dered why it was so impor­tant for you in writ­ing this book that you immersed your­self into the lives of the hack­ing com­mu­ni­ty. And also as a Labour lawyer—what sort of per­spec­tive did that give you on the hack­ing com­mu­ni­ty?

Webb: Well, you know, this was real­ly a project of jour­nal­ism. I was report­ing on the hack­ing move­ment and so it was impor­tant to go and see it for myself. It’s a very com­plex top­ic. it tra­vers­es many dis­ci­plines and many issues. I also think that if any­thing, the book hope­ful­ly ful­fils the pub­lic ser­vice in describ­ing some very wide and impor­tant issues in an acces­si­ble way. It’s real­ly a nar­ra­tive. It’s a nar­ra­tive of my Odyssey as an every-person try­ing to under­stand the sig­nif­i­cance of hack­ing in the 21st cen­tu­ry, and it also allows hack­ers them­selves to speak with their own voic­es. The ear­ly feed­back is that these are real­ly mar­vel­lous peo­ple that I was able to speak to; very inter­est­ing voic­es that you’ll hear. As a Labour lawyer, I’m con­cerned with the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of the dig­i­tal econ­o­my that we’re see­ing arise around us, the sus­tain­abil­i­ty of this plat­form cap­i­tal­ism that’s destroy­ing so many vec­tors of the econ­o­my. The idea of the end of work, which this pan­dem­ic recent­ly has brought home in a very sober­ing way to peo­ple. That by the mid-century there we might have 50% unem­ploy­ment just because of advances in tech­nol­o­gy, and how are we going to organ­ise our soci­eties around that? I am inter­est­ed in the con­cerns of Occupy, the grow­ing inequal­i­ty in the world, the con­cen­tra­tions of wealth and pow­er. Really, I came to see the hack­ing move­ment as it’s been devel­op­ing in the last decade as a kind of new dig­i­tal pop­ulism. Coming from the prairies, being a Canadian who for whom prairie pop­ulism invent­ed our social safe­ty net here, and uni­ver­sal health­care brought that into our country—I’m not afraid of pop­ulism. It’s a very inter­est­ing time, this back­lash against pop­ulism. You know, the threats to democ­ra­cy, con­verg­ing with the new chal­lenges of the dig­i­tal era.

Mason: At the core of the book, there’s this the­sis, this idea that hack­ers are vital dis­rup­tors. Now often when we think about hack­ing, we think about these indi­vid­u­als, these hack­ers who are dan­ger­ous or nihilis­tic, but in the book you say that hack­ers are agents of pos­i­tive chaos. So could you tell us a lit­tle bit more about that the­sis?

Webb: You know, hack­ing has evolved enor­mous­ly since the 1950s. Essentially, there’s a phe­nom­e­non that many peo­ple have been miss­ing, which is the recent expo­nen­tial growth of the pro­gres­sive hack­er scene around organ­i­sa­tions like the Chaos Computer Club in Europe. When I speak of hack­ers as vital dis­rup­tors, yes—hackers have been engaged in a whole range of activ­i­ties from the clear­ly dan­ger­ous and nihilis­tic to the high­ly altru­is­tic and admirable. Along that range, there is a range of trans­gres­sion and even crim­i­nal­i­ty, but being a civ­il lib­er­ties activist myself, I under­stand the val­ue of civ­il dis­obe­di­ence and the impor­tance that it’s played through­out his­to­ry in bring­ing about impor­tant changes in soci­ety. So in that sense, I do see that there’s val­ue in that whole range of activ­i­ty. Not clear­ly the pure­ly malign and destruc­tive, but the rest of that spec­trum.

When I say that they’re vital dis­rup­tors, well it’s quite con­crete. Where we have sur­veil­lance cap­i­tal­ism, where we have increas­ing social con­trol through dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy by states. The hack­ers have been fight­ing for encryp­tion for civil­ians and pri­va­cy for cit­i­zens. Where we have had the grow­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion wars that near­ly over­whelmed our demo­c­ra­t­ic elec­tions. We have hack­ers fight­ing for truth and trans­paren­cy, where there has been an increas­ing com­mer­cial­i­sa­tion of the inter­net, and seques­ter­ing and cap­tur­ing of its poten­tial by cor­po­rate gate­keep­ers. We have hack­ers fight­ing for net neu­tral­i­ty and decen­tral­i­sa­tion. Where we have pro­pri­etary closed code, and the emer­gence of dig­i­tal rights man­age­ment, which is infect­ing all of our com­put­ers and clos­ing up cre­ative con­tent, pre­vent­ing peo­ple from a huge shift of prop­er­ty rights to cor­po­ra­tions away from indi­vid­u­als. We have hack­ers who are fight­ing for free soft­ware and an end to dig­i­tal rights man­age­ment. Where we have these plat­form monop­o­lies that are killing local economies and suck­ing up vast amounts of cap­i­tal and not using it in a con­struc­tive way, we have hack­ers fight­ing for alter­na­tives that we could build a new econ­o­my around.

So very much in high­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed ways. And in a very broad range of exper­i­ments. I think that hack­ers are going to be vital dis­rup­tors  to the way that things are tend­ing to go right now.

Mason: What’s so inter­est­ing about the book is how you give this almost com­plete his­to­ry of hack­ing and the prac­tice of hack­ing. You go all the way back to the 1950s, and you look at how the moti­va­tions of hack­ers have evolved over time. You start with the Steven Levy’s hack­er eth­ic and go all the way through to the Hacker Way—the way in which hack­ing was co-opted by Silicon Valley and the hack­away became this way of doing things in cor­po­ra­tions and com­pa­nies like Facebook. Over that his­to­ry, how have we seen pub­lic per­cep­tion of hack­ing change?

Webb: The pub­lic averts to it in fits and starts as dra­mat­ic events hap­pen and the per­cep­tion morphs—has mor­phed sev­er­al times over the decades. I start the his­to­ry back in at MIT in the 1950s when the word hack­er was coined, and young com­put­er sci­en­tists were exper­i­ment­ing with the ear­ly main­frame com­put­ers. That was real­ly the first wave of hack­ers.

The sec­ond wave of hack­ers were con­cerned with get­ting per­son­al com­put­ers to the peo­ple. Out of that grew a lot of the ear­ly Silicon Valley com­pa­nies, so that hack­ing and the hack­er ethos was in the DNA of Silicon Valley from the begin­ning. You know, I guess the hack­er ethos, broad­ly speak­ing, I would say it’s any­one who sub­scribes to the idea that sys­tems deserve to be tak­en apart and exam­ined, and stud­ied and mod­i­fied, and repur­posed and their pur­pos­es inter­ro­gat­ed. You know, that’s, broad­ly speak­ing, the hack­er ethos.

In Europe, there was much more of an empha­sis on the role of tech­nol­o­gy in soci­ety and a much more crit­i­cal analy­sis of how dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy would change soci­ety. Early dig­i­tal rights pio­neers like Wau Holland talked about the respon­si­bil­i­ty of hack­ers. His idea was that hack­ers should fight the neg­a­tive ten­den­cies of tech­nol­o­gy with humour and skill. He thought that the way things hap­pened in the world was much less deter­min­is­tic than we thought, much less lin­ear. But in fact, he ascribed to sort of a chaos the­o­ry. That hack­ers could inter­vene as pos­i­tive agents of pos­i­tive chaos, to dis­rupt neg­a­tive ten­den­cies of tech­nol­o­gy.

Then in the 90s we had the cypher­punks, who in the United States were sort of high lev­el guys in Silicon Valley, lib­er­tar­i­ans. But they start­ed a list that many young hack­ers joined, includ­ing peo­ple like Julian Assange, and ulti­mate­ly out of that in the ear­ly 2000s, I think that you had the growth of a much more pro­gres­sive hack­er scene, that has only been grow­ing expo­nen­tial­ly. So while maybe in the 80s, you had teenagers in the base­ments exper­i­ment­ing in ways that we’re not ter­ri­bly polit­i­cal­ly informed, that’s real­ly quite a small part of the hack­ing sto­ry. The hack­ing sto­ry now is real­ly mov­ing for­ward, almost in a way try­ing to con­ceive and bring the ideals of the Occupy move­ment into the dig­i­tal era.

Mason: Your back­ground, Maureen, is writ­ing about secu­ri­ty. There is a thread through­out this book that feels like you’re look­ing at hack­ers as the indi­vid­u­als who are able to chal­lenge some of the dan­gers that both gov­ern­ment and pri­vate sec­tor sur­veil­lance pos­es for democ­ra­cy. So I just won­der if you could tell us a lit­tle bit more about that tricky rela­tion­ship between secre­cy and trans­paren­cy, and between open­ness and anonymi­ty? How can these two things coex­ist in our pol­i­tics and in the 21st cen­tu­ry?

Webb: Well, I think that at sort of a larg­er, meta lev­el. But what you see in the last decade is the con­ver­gence of the inter­ests of large cor­po­ra­tions with gov­ern­ments. As large cor­po­ra­tions cap­ture more and more prof­its from dig­i­tal advances, and gov­ern­ments part­ner with them to achieve greater and greater social con­trol, and then of course, the cor­rup­tion that hap­pens when politi­cians are cap­tured by those spe­cial inter­ests.

The hack­er is like the shaman. They’re like the new shaman in soci­ety, right? They have achieved almost folk­loric sta­tus for the rea­son that they are the savants in this world. The rest of us know noth­ing about code. We’re total­ly at the mer­cy of the code mak­ers, and code is now ubiq­ui­tous in our lives. With the Internet of Things and smart cities, it’s going to be every­where. Neither gov­ern­ments nor large cor­po­ra­tions have an incen­tive to think respon­si­bly about tech­nol­o­gy in soci­ety. It’s real­ly been almost left to the hobbyist—to the hackers—many of whom are run­ning their own tech­nol­o­gy con­sul­tan­cies or work­ing in Silicon Valley in order to make a liv­ing. The con­science and the con­scious­ness of the hack­er is sort of thread­ed through­out that land­scape.

Certainly, you know, as a lawyer, I can appre­ci­ate that even insti­tu­tions need some sphere of trans­paren­cy, and I think hack­ers would agree with that. We know that Julian Assange was harsh­ly crit­i­cised for the redac­tion that he made on an ear­ly set of doc­u­ments that he released. Then he was, I under­stand, false­ly accused of not redact­ing anoth­er set when it real­ly was the fault of The Guardian.

 I do tell the sto­ry of one hack­er, John Young of Cryptome, who it seems, seems to release every­thing. But there is this bal­ance, and there’s a bal­ance when it comes to law enforce­ment, you know, and issues of the dark web. There has to be some scope for law enforce­ment to inves­ti­gate activ­i­ties. But on the whole, I think what we see emerg­ing is this new man­i­festo of the hack­er move­ment, which is pri­va­cy for the weak, trans­paren­cy for the pow­er­ful. It’s the pow­er­ful who should be account­able to the peo­ple, and in a democ­ra­cy, the peo­ple are not account­able to their gov­ern­ment, except in very defined ways and with rights of due process. No, it’s the rulers who are account­able to the gov­erned. So that’s a very pro­found man­i­festo that has emerged recent­ly. It’s an abstrac­tion from the exam­ple of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, on the one hand, trans­paren­cy through the pow­er­ful and the rev­e­la­tions of Edward Snowden on the oth­er. Privacy for the weak.

Mason: In that case, I want to ask you a lit­tle bit more about the rela­tion­ship between hack­ing and pol­i­tics, because it felt from read­ing the book that one can’t exist with­out the oth­er in the way hack­ing holds our polit­i­cal envi­ron­ment account­able. Does the polit­i­cal envi­ron­ment impact the motives and the meth­ods that the hack­ers use? Or does the exis­tence of hack­ers change the world in which polit­i­cal sys­tems are struc­tured? Do they have to coex­ist to hold democ­ra­cy account­able?

Webb: You know, hack­ing is unavoid­ably a high­ly polit­i­cal activ­i­ty. I heard a Spanish hack­er and com­put­er sci­en­tist say some­thing real­ly inter­est­ing to me. He said that hack­ing is between reform and rev­o­lu­tion. He said reform­ers love hack­ing, because it intro­duces changes and reform, but it’s not full-on rev­o­lu­tion. Revolutionaries love hack­ing, because they hope that the changes that they bring will trig­ger emer­gent prop­er­ties, which will be rev­o­lu­tion­ary to the sys­tem. So hack­ing exists in this strange zone between the two.

I think that if you look at the history—just look at the his­to­ry of the United States. It real­ly invent­ed the idea of pop­u­lar sov­er­eign­ty; it did­n’t exist before. Democracies in Europe and in places like Canada were based on old ideas of monar­chy, where a cer­tain amount of pow­er was giv­en to the peo­ple through rep­re­sen­ta­tives, and so the head of state was still the monarch. But part of the state pow­er was giv­en to rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the peo­ple. In the United States, they inno­vat­ed this idea of pop­u­lar sov­er­eign­ty, where actu­al­ly, the the­o­ry was that the pow­er is held by the peo­ple and it’s nev­er giv­en up by the peo­ple. The gov­ern­ment is, in that sense, not a rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­ra­cy but ful­ly account­able to the peo­ple. This idea of pop­u­lar sovereignty—I think it’s some­thing that hack­ers are reviv­ing. You’ll see, in a lot of hack­er dis­cus­sions and tracks, a sort of exam­i­na­tion of the American Constitution, the ideas of that con­sti­tu­tion and what pop­u­lar sov­er­eign­ty means in the dig­i­tal age.

Two of the fun­da­men­tal con­di­tions for democ­ra­cy and pop­u­lar sov­er­eign­ty are the right to privacy—autonomy for peo­ple in their pri­vate lives and thoughts—and trans­paren­cy. The only rem­e­dy for cor­rup­tion and the only way to hold the pow­er­ful account­able.

Mason: So in many ways, it feels like hack­ers are respon­si­ble and help to con­tin­ue the ongo­ing exper­i­ment of pol­i­tics. When it comes to the idea of hacking—and I want to jump to how we think about it today in the 21st century—it feels like we men­tioned the word hack­ing, and it’s syn­ony­mous with the idea of WikiLeaks, and it’s syn­ony­mous with the idea of Julian Assange. It’s syn­ony­mous with the idea of Edward Snowden. I just won­der how these three indi­vid­u­als have come to define our under­stand­ing of hack­ing in the 21st cen­tu­ry.

Webb: Yeah, those were two of the most momen­tous sto­ries in the his­to­ry of hacking—the short his­to­ry of hack­ing. What Snowden brought to the world was that he real­ly induced a col­lec­tive epiphany among the ordi­nary per­son about the extent and dan­ger of state and cor­po­rate sur­veil­lance. You know, obvi­ous­ly, a lot of jour­nal­ism, a lot of sto­ries were bub­bling up since the war on ter­ror, but it was real­ly only with Snowden that it real­ly came home in a vis­cer­al way to the ordi­nary per­son. That we were look­ing at the end of pri­va­cy. I think part of that was the idea that peo­ple kind of felt that, even if they might be watched, they still had the anonymi­ty of the crowd, and they did­n’t under­stand the degree to which their activ­i­ties could be pin­point­ed in any time. That was the gift of Edward Snowden.

The con­tri­bu­tion of Julian Assange…and I’ve heard hack­ers say that peo­ple like Assange and Richard Stallman—their intel­lec­tu­al influ­ence is far greater than Larry Page, Bill Gates, any of these big Silicon Valley guys. What Assange real­ly forced was this ques­tion of trans­paren­cy and account­abil­i­ty in the mod­ern age. If you look at the scope of what WikiLeaks has post­ed since the begin­ning of its operations—one might ques­tion the wis­dom of some of their lat­er activities—but they were real­ly rev­o­lu­tion­ary in terms of what peo­ple can expect to know about what the pow­er­ful are doing. Both their own gov­ern­ments and the oli­garchs that rule them. Really, I do think that Assange and Snowden are respon­si­ble for this. The force behind this new man­i­festo of pri­va­cy for the weak, trans­paren­cy for the pow­er­ful, which many people—ordinary peo­ple with lit­tle con­nec­tion to dig­i­tal technology—would ascribe to. But I think that what’s need­ed is actu­al­ly a whole new dig­i­tal era civics. That peo­ple also need to under­stand the impor­tance of net neu­tral­i­ty to their democ­ra­cies, the impor­tance of free soft­ware. They need to under­stand what this new dig­i­tal econ­o­my is all about, so that these ideas—what I would call the organ­is­ing prin­ci­ples of dig­i­tal era civics—are as impor­tant to democ­ra­cy, if peo­ple under­stood them, as the old enlight­en­ment ideas of equal­i­ty, fra­ter­ni­ty and lib­er­ty were back in the 18th cen­tu­ry.

Mason: I want to talk a lit­tle bit more about what that might actu­al­ly look like, this idea of build­ing out democ­ra­cy into cyber­space. It feels like at least in the 21st cen­tu­ry, hack­ers have moved away from the hack­ing spe­cif­ic sys­tems towards almost build­ing alter­na­tive sys­tems. Challenging the mono­liths of plat­form cap­i­tal­ism and try­ing to build the web that we deserve, and the web that we want. So in what way is net neu­tral­i­ty the heart of this, and how are hack­ers try­ing to achieve this? I mean, what are some of the new tech­nolo­gies they might be employ­ing to build these alter­na­tive new sys­tems?

Webb: Well, yeah. Net neu­tral­i­ty guar­an­tees that every­one has access to the inter­net and can use it equal­ly. It was the orig­i­nal struc­ture of the inter­net as a decen­tralised inter­op­er­a­ble sys­tem, but that has increas­ing­ly been attacked and mod­i­fied by gov­ern­ments and cor­po­ra­tions as they try to sequester or gate­keep­er parts of the inter­net for their own inter­ests. So yes, one of the major projects of the pro­gres­sive hack­er scene right now is to rein­vent or recap­ture, or build out a new ver­sion of a decen­tralised, inter­op­er­a­ble privacy-secure inter­net and web. Not an easy task, where polit­i­cal­ly or tech­ni­cal­ly it’s actu­al­ly very com­plex. There’s a group at the Chaos Computer Club that’s been work­ing since at least 2015 on a new civil­ian inter­net to, you know…it’s sort of a race between good and bad actors. They’ve got DARPA, the defence agency. They’re the ones that cre­at­ed total sur­veil­lance infra­struc­tures after the war on ter­ror. On the one hand, they’ve con­tributed to the devel­op­ment of Tor, and right now they’re talk­ing about rebuild­ing a new inter­net that will fix some of the flaws of the old one, because the old one did­n’t. I think when it was built as an inter­op­er­a­ble sys­tem, they weren’t real­ly think­ing of pri­va­cy con­cerns. But what the US defence depart­ment will build could be a lot less pro­gres­sive than what the Chaos Computer Club might build.

Then even the European Union is jump­ing in with a new ini­tia­tive for a new privacy-secure civil­ian inter­net. It’s a big soci­etal project, and hack­ing groups like the Chaos Computer Club are actu­al­ly being asked to advise var­i­ous com­mit­tees in the European Union that are work­ing on that. Then Tim Berners-Lee also has a project called Solid, where he’s try­ing to recon­fig­ure and rebuild the World Wide Web. There’s just a vast array of hack­er exper­i­ments out there right now, that could fun­da­men­tal­ly change the polit­i­cal econ­o­my as we know it. They’re using fed­er­at­ed tech­nol­o­gy, the exist­ing tech­nol­o­gy of the internet—but they’re also exper­i­ment­ing in peer-to-peer tech­nol­o­gy and blockchain. These are tech­nolo­gies in the ear­ly stages so it all looks a bit pie in the sky, but some of these exper­i­ments could real­ly lead to pro­found changes in the polit­i­cal econ­o­my.

Mason: Now some of the things you’re men­tion­ing feel very tech­ni­cal and feel very con­fus­ing to every­day users, every­day cit­i­zens and the gen­er­al pub­lic at large. I just won­der two things real­ly. One—how does the gen­er­al pub­lic bet­ter engage with the ideas of secu­ri­ty, pri­va­cy and data rights? And also, how does the gen­er­al pub­lic become more empa­thet­ic towards hack­ers? I mean, often hack­ers work and they don’t tru­ly under­stand the social con­se­quences of their actions. They’re real­ly doing it because of a fas­ci­na­tion for tech­nol­o­gy. Sometimes the gen­er­al pub­lic does­n’t under­stand that. They don’t ful­ly under­stand their moti­va­tions. How do we, as indi­vid­u­als, bet­ter under­stand our data rights and also bet­ter under­stand hack­ers?

Webb: Well, I think there’s a huge onus on the pub­lic to get with the 21st cen­tu­ry in terms of our civic under­stand­ing. I would put that on us. But you know, I think we do need a new  dig­i­tal era civics. We’ve got to under­stand why things like Cambridge Analytica, to the kind of piece­work that Uber and oth­er plat­form monop­o­lies throw us, to how our mon­e­tary sys­tems work. We’ve got to under­stand this new land­scape the way that hack­ers under­stand it.

As for the technical…I was very inter­est­ed in writ­ing this book, to look at the inter­face between the user and the tech­nol­o­gy. So not just describ­ing hack­er tools and the con­cepts behind them and the ideas behind them, but actu­al­ly try­ing to learn how to use them. One theme that runs through­out all of this work is usabil­i­ty. It’s very hard to cre­ate usable tools, and it’s very hard to cre­ate busi­ness mod­els that can over­take the plat­form monop­oly mod­els. So I think for users, we’re kind of hopeless—but I don’t think that’s our fault. I do think that the tech­nol­o­gists have to cre­ate things that are usable and appeal­ing, but on the oth­er hand, for cit­i­zens, it’s impor­tant that we start under­stand­ing the world the way that hack­ers do.

I think that there’s been a pro­gres­sion in the hack­er move­ment. A lot of those ear­ly teenage hack­ers in the 1980s and ear­ly 90s that got into trou­ble with var­i­ous exploits—they too have evolved. They are now quite sophis­ti­cat­ed polit­i­cal thinkers and actors at the inter­face of tech­nol­o­gy and soci­ety.

Mason: Well, to help us bet­ter under­stand how hack­ers think the way they do, we’re lucky to have a well known British hack­er join us on the Futures pod­cast today, and that hack­er is Lauri Love. Now Lauri, I guess the first ques­tion I should prob­a­bly ask you is, would you actu­al­ly describe your­self as a hack­er?

Lauri Love: So in order to answer that ques­tion, we have to unpick what is an unfor­tu­nate over­load­ing or col­li­sion of the mean­ings in hack­er. So I iden­ti­fy unre­served­ly and enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly as a hack­er, but in the sense that Maureen was putting across, as peo­ple who exper­i­ment with tech­nol­o­gy who push the bound­aries, who live on the fron­tier, who use their imag­i­na­tion to re envi­sion what is pos­si­ble through the inter­face of tech­nol­o­gy, and human­i­ty and soci­ety.

At the same time, a par­al­lel mean­ing evolved—not entire­ly dis­tinct because of the over­lap of the means—but it became, in the eyes of soci­ety that was­n’t as inter­est­ed in the imag­i­na­tive and the cre­ative but was inter­est­ed in the trans­gres­sive ele­ment, there became this mean­ing of hack­er as some­one who is a crim­i­nal. Who uses those abil­i­ties to cross over a bor­der of what is a defined engage­ment with a tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tem, and either to cause some inad­ver­tent decline cor­rup­tion, or more recent­ly to engage in what would be a tra­di­tion­al crim­i­nal activ­i­ty through the means of tech­nol­o­gy. So I don’t define myself as a crim­i­nal hacker—despite some alle­ga­tions in his­to­ry with the US Department of Justice and some long ordeals pur­suant to that.

We’ve kind of fought this seman­tic bat­tle for a while—where we tried to get peo­ple to use the word crack­er’ rather than hack­er’ and it was an uphill strug­gle. So, we’ve had to live with the fact that we have this over­load, this col­li­sion of meanings—and we just have to sort of explain the nuance where we can.

Mason: In what way, Lauri, do you see hack­ing as this pos­i­tive force in the world?

Love: There is a neces­si­ty in soci­ety and in the world for the use of imag­i­na­tion to break through where things have become stuck in a rut. We see this in pol­i­tics. There is a sort of ten­den­cy for the tra­di­tion­al peo­ple and sys­tems that hold power—which is usu­al­ly high­ly cor­re­lat­ed with wealth and posi­tion with­in a social stratification—to have things work in a very easy way for them so that they can con­tin­ue to accu­mu­late their wealth and their pow­er in the world. At the expense of peo­ple’s civ­il lib­er­ties, at the expense of free­dom, and the abil­i­ty to do things dif­fer­ent­ly.

Hackers in the pos­i­tive sense of a chaot­ic actor are able to dis­rupt that. So where the evo­lu­tion of soci­ety has become staid and has become blocked, through hack­ing, you can punc­ture the equilibrium—to bor­row a term from evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy. You can cre­ate a new kind of pos­si­bil­i­ty that was­n’t in the pre­vi­ous rules by decid­ing to step out of the rule sys­tem onto a meta-level and to imag­ine a new game. I think that’s what hack­ers do at the very root.

Mason: What was it Lauri that sparked your per­son­al inter­est in hack­ing? What led to your inter­est in groups such as CyberArmy and Anonymous?

Love: So I am a bit of a nerdy kind of guy. I am autis­tic, or Aspergic. So I had some issues—continue to have some issues—with social­i­sa­tion in the tra­di­tion­al sense. Then we got the internet…or legit­i­mate­ly got the inter­net. I man­aged to obtain a modem and I ran some tele­phone cables under the car­pet so I would­n’t get in trou­ble with my par­ents. Suddenly, this whole new world opened up to me where I was able to use my-. Let’s just say I was a bit bored in school some­times, so I had this latent intel­lec­tu­al capac­i­ty that the inter­net was able to enable me to use, and to cross over these bor­ders and bound­aries and these sort of arbi­trary dis­tinc­tions that lim­it you. Especially as a kind of pre­co­cious child, I was able to meet peo­ple that were like mind­ed and not nec­es­sar­i­ly lim­it­ed by geog­ra­phy, by lan­guage and by all of these oth­er things that can pin us into a small locus of engage­ment in the world. I had this inter­est in max­imis­ing what I could do with my brain and imag­i­na­tion, and tech­nol­o­gy offered a way to do that.

To go back to chang­ing the rules of the game, we had this old com­put­er sys­tem called the NSX, and we had a lot of flop­py disks that we copied when we were in Finland on a hol­i­day. The first thing you do is you play the games, but then at some point, you realise that some of them are writ­ten in lines of code that you can look at. You mash your head against that for a few hun­dred hours, and then you realise that if you stop the game at a cer­tain point, when you’ve just been eat­en by the mon­ster, and look at what the pro­gramme list­ing is doing, you can change those rules so that the mon­ster can’t eat you, and you can get fur­ther in the game. That opened up a sense of great pow­er. I guess the rest of my life has been the explo­ration and the elab­o­ra­tion of what it means to have that pow­er and how to use it, hope­ful­ly, for the good of soci­ety.

Mason: I mean, at the core of that pow­er is what you’ve called your neu­ro­di­ver­si­ty. That’s real­ly at the heart of how you think about technology—imaginatively think about tech­nol­o­gy. I just won­der if you could describe a lit­tle bit more about how that’s such a super­pow­er in many ways.

Webb: Yeah, I mean you’ve used exact­ly the right word. Unfortunately, in his­to­ry, peo­ple have been expect­ed to fit in this neb­u­lous con­cept of nor­mal. Those who weren’t nor­mal were con­sid­ered to be abhor­rent or to be bro­ken in some way. You have this old turn of phrase of try­ing to fit the square shapes through the round holes’—you know, that chil­dren’s toy. Recently, we’re just start­ing on this jour­ney in soci­ety of real­ly under­stand­ing and appre­ci­at­ing that we have com­pli­men­ta­ry types of human being. So we all have our own dif­fer­ent super­pow­ers, and the com­bi­na­tion of all of them cre­ates a kind of syn­er­gy where we are greater than the whole. If we were all exact­ly the same, then that lack of diver­si­ty would cause an eco­log­i­cal prob­lem where if we’re faced with a new chal­lenge with­out hav­ing that diver­si­ty of think­ing and approach­ing the world, then we would­n’t be able to respond to it and get past it. So we need not just the geeks and the nerds, but we need all of the peo­ple that are dif­fer­ent and spe­cial in some way. So if we can start to look at it more as we have dif­fer­ent super­pow­ers, and of course, dif­fer­ent chal­lenges as well, but we can actu­al­ly har­ness that diver­si­ty.

Mason: Now I want to look at the case that brought you onto the scene. So it was in October 2013, when real­ly, your life changed. You were accused of hack­ing US Federal organ­i­sa­tions, and I just won­der if you could tell us a lit­tle bit of that sto­ry, I guess—in your own words.

Love: Sure. I mean, it goes back to the won­der­ful but trag­i­cal­ly short life of some­one called Aaron Swartz, who Maureen will know about through the research he did on her book. He was a young tech­nol­o­gist. He co-founded what became Reddit, but he also—at the age of 14—co authored one of the pro­to­cols RSS, which is still used to syn­di­cate con­tent on the web. Later on, the US gov­ern­ment was attempt­ing to bring in some rather oppres­sive leg­is­la­tion at the behest of the copy­right car­tel, Hollywood MPAA in the audio indus­try. This was to stop peo­ple shar­ing dig­i­tal content—or to crim­i­nalise it further—giving more con­trol to the gov­ern­ment and forc­ing inter­net ser­vice providers to share infor­ma­tion, osten­si­bly to stop mali­cious com­put­er hack­ing. Aaron sort of led some cam­paigns that were even­tu­al­ly joined by the big tech giants, who blacked out their front pages, and those bad bits of leg­is­la­tion was stopped.

He was also tan­gen­tial­ly involved in WikiLeaks in the trans­paren­cy move­ment, free writ­ing some soft­ware, which is still used today by major media out­lets. It’s called SecureDrop now, to allow peo­ple to anony­mous­ly and safe­ly upload source doc­u­ments if they’re act­ing as whistle­blow­ers or have some infor­ma­tion.

He got into trou­ble for using MIT cam­pus to down­load, en masse, large amounts of sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals from the online archive, which arguably should not have been a crim­i­nal offence—it was just mere­ly exceed­ing the terms of ser­vice. But unfor­tu­nate­ly the way the US leg­is­la­tion that defines crim­i­nal hack­ing allows the exceed­ing of the terms of ser­vice to become a felony. They want­ed to make an exam­ple of him, unfor­tu­nate­ly, sim­i­lar­ly to how it was done with civ­il rights activists under the COINTELPRO pro­gram in the 70s.

It was deemed by cer­tain peo­ple in pow­er that if we make an exam­ple of Aaron Swartz, then it will stop oth­er peo­ple from get­ting too uppi­ty, shall we say, in agi­tat­ing for dig­i­tal rights and the free­dom of the inter­net. So had this act of bor­row­ing too many library books was lever­aged into poten­tial­ly 30 years in prison and mil­lions of dol­lars of fines, and Aaron end­ed his own life—committed sui­cide by hang­ing. This has led to a lot of anger on the inter­net, which man­i­fest­ed in var­i­ous ways. Some through reform activ­i­ties in Congress and oth­er means.

Another vein, anoth­er strand of the response was this activist cam­paign under the Anonymous brand­ing where the intent was, through the use of some chaot­ic dis­rup­tions and some web deface­ment and the threat of the release of sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion, to pro­voke. Similarly, this reform of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and even more so the puni­tive sen­tenc­ing lee­way that pros­e­cu­tors have to give defen­dants, effec­tive­ly, a choice between a small amount of charges or charges being piled on and stacked on with var­i­ous mul­ti­pli­ers that judges can apply in sen­tenc­ing. Here, you have what’s called a coer­cive plea bar­gain­ing sys­tem where 97% of fed­er­al crim­i­nal defendants—rather than go to trial—acquiesce to this offer you can’t refuse, and take the plea.

It was that impos­si­ble bind, that choice that did not allow a way out for Aaron—because of his principles—that result­ed in him com­mit­ting sui­cide. This was just an exam­ple of the mas­sive bro­ken­ness of the US fed­er­al crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem in gen­er­al. So some things were hacked. As far as I know, noth­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly mali­cious was done dis­rup­tive­ly or destruc­tive­ly. But it was obvi­ous­ly a provo­ca­tion against some very pow­er­ful peo­ple in the United States. In October 2013 I had the knock on the door and the National Crime Agency work­ing with the FBI picked me up and rather than being charged in the UK, which is how it should have been done, the deci­sion was made to try to extra­dite me to the United States.

Mason: Now, there was a par­tic­u­lar set of cir­cum­stances that actu­al­ly stopped that extra­di­tion. I just won­der if you could tell us the details of the case and why you were allowed to remain in the UK?

Love: Yeah, so a lit­tle bit of con­text. In his­to­ry, the treaty between the UK and the USA is wide­ly con­sid­ered to be bro­ken. It’s one sided. The United States almost always gets the per­son that they request under the extra­di­tion treaty. It was brought in after the events of 911, where the UK and US gov­ern­ments were in cahoots, shall we say, in some mil­i­tary adven­tur­ism as a response. Tony Blair’s gov­ern­ment nego­ti­at­ed this treaty where the United States would not have to apply what’s called a pri­ma facie case, which is just suf­fi­cient evi­dence that would ordi­nar­i­ly allow some­one to be arrest­ed, to be ques­tioned and to have a search and seizure on them. So the result of this is—and it was a very Kafkaesque expe­ri­ence to go through—but under an extra­di­tion request from the United States, they can make any asser­tions that they like, and none of it has to be proven, none of it can be con­test­ed on an evi­den­tiary basis. So we were only able to argue process­es, effec­tive­ly. So rea­sons for there not to be extra­di­tion that are explic­it­ly out­lined in law

I had the same solic­i­tor as some­one called Gary McKinnon had. He is anoth­er Aspgeric lad who did some explorato­ry hack­ing, shall we say, and was accused of hack­ing into NASA to find evi­dence of aliens and free ener­gy tech­nolo­gies. His extra­di­tion was stopped under human rights grounds by the Home Secretary at the time, Theresa May, because it was deemed that because of his health con­di­tions, and the par­tic­u­lar harsh­ness of US deten­tion con­di­tions, and their abil­i­ty to respond to med­ical con­cerns, that there was a risk of him com­mit­ting sui­cide.

After that case was stopped at the polit­i­cal lev­el by the Home Secretary, they changed the law to take away the dis­cre­tion of the Home Secretary to con­sid­er human rights, which is legal­ly, jurispru­den­tial­ly prob­lem­at­ic in itself. But they asked about and they intro­duced this thing called the Forum Bar. The Forum Bar says that if it’s in the inter­est of jus­tice for that to be a domes­tic pros­e­cu­tion, there should not be an extra­di­tion. So it’s a kind of infe­ri­or com­mon sense bar against extra­di­tion, but nobody had been able to win under that legal argu­ment until our case.

What was good from my point of view, as a reformist, shall we say, or some­body who wants to fix the sys­tem, is it gave us the abil­i­ty to deduce a lot of evi­dence about exact­ly the same things that the hack­tivist cam­paign was seek­ing to high­light, which is the coer­cive pre-bargaining, the dis­pro­por­tion­ate sentences—in my case, 99 years for a non vio­lent act extraterritoriality—and most impor­tant­ly, how bad the con­di­tions are.

Unfortunately, we’re see­ing that play out right now in Rikers where the virus is about to cause a blood bath and the con­di­tions there are not able to address. So we lost in the first instance at Westminster Magistrates Court, where you’re expect­ed to lose because the judges they’re par­tic­u­lar­ly behold­en to the spe­cial rela­tion­ship, but we were able to win on appeal under the Forum Bar, but also a sep­a­rate grounds which is that it would be unjust and oppres­sive for some­one with my men­tal health backgrounds—which is one of depres­sion, anx­i­ety and my phys­i­cal health complications—to be sent to the US. That was illu­mi­nat­ed by the expert wit­ness­es that we had to speak about those con­di­tions and the things that, in my point of view, need des­per­ate­ly to be reformed in that sys­tem.

Mason: How do you think your case has changed the per­cep­tion of hack­ing? Both the per­cep­tion and the way it’s been leg­is­lat­ed today

Love: It’s inter­est­ing, the weird para­dox between the pow­er sys­tem. The United States Department of Justice want­i­ng to take me—somebody who has nev­er vis­it­ed the United States—and put me in jail effec­tive­ly for the rest of my life, ver­sus the pub­lic per­cep­tion, which almost uni­ver­sal­ly has been pos­i­tive. I’ve nev­er had any­one else, in per­son, try to give me a hard time for what I was accused of being involved in. It’s usu­al­ly, Let me shake your hand, let me buy you a drink. You’re a hero.” I think that expos­es the fact that the way the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem and the way entrenched pow­er struc­tures are respond­ing to hack­ing is mas­sive­ly at odds with the pub­lic’s imag­i­na­tion of what is done, where that is done, for a pos­i­tive activist rea­son.

Most peo­ple in the pub­lic right­ly decry and take a dim view of peo­ple using hack­ing skills and abil­i­ties to com­mit fraud or to scam your moth­er or grand­moth­er, or some­one else who is tech­no­log­i­cal­ly unsavvy. But peo­ple look upon hack­tivists as a kind of cul­ture hero. We have to see this in the cor­rect con­text of his­to­ry. As Maureen was talk­ing about dis­rup­tion, the United States has a won­der­ful mythos of its val­ues in terms of the rev­o­lu­tion against the tra­di­tion­al European sys­tems of democ­ra­cy that were not tru­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive. The peo­ple were not sov­er­eign and the found­ing fathers cre­at­ed this won­der­ful con­sti­tu­tion, this bill of rights. Unfortunately the real­i­ty is not always met with the ide­al but that ide­al is still very inspi­ra­tional in the world today. These found­ing fathers who are lord­ed in American his­to­ry were dis­rup­tors. They rebelled against the UK Crown. They did some things—the Boston Tea Party is a cel­e­brat­ed act of civ­il dis­obe­di­ence, and so when a dis­rup­tor is seen to be vil­i­fied or is seen to be hero­ic depends on how the his­to­ry is writ­ten after­wards, and that depends on the suc­cess of that dis­rup­tion.

Mason: You’ve been quot­ed as say­ing, Security breach­es are in many ways human rights defend­ers.” I just won­der what you meant by that?

Love: Let’s look at the case, again, of Edward Snowden. The world would not have been able to have this epiphany on the dan­gers of encroach­ing total­i­tar­i­an sur­veil­lance sys­tems had Edward Snowden not engaged in an act that was heav­i­ly not-encouraged by the peo­ple he was work­ing for. That required mas­sive per­son­al risk on his behalf, and required him to breach the secu­ri­ty pro­to­cols in NSA and in the pri­vate cor­po­ra­tion that he was work­ing for to get that infor­ma­tion into the pub­lic. This again required peo­ple that were will­ing to pub­lish that infor­ma­tion, which is a mas­sive act of courage and which unfor­tu­nate­ly we need to con­tin­ue fight­ing for, because I don’t know, today, if The Washington Times and The Guardian would actu­al­ly pub­lish those tranch­es, those caches of infor­ma­tion any­more. With the vil­i­fi­ca­tion and the crim­i­nal­i­sa­tion of WikiLeaks in the ongo­ing attempt to extra­dite Julian Assange, we risk the chill­ing effects of the fear and of the con­se­quences of putting that infor­ma­tion into the pub­lic hands.

It real­ly depends what is breached. If a pri­vate indi­vid­u­al’s bank­ing details are tak­en by peo­ple work­ing for organ­ised crime, then there’s obvi­ous­ly no civic pos­i­tive effect of that. But to use anoth­er recent example—The Panama Papers—where the source for a mas­sive act of col­lab­o­ra­tive jour­nal­ism was a hack­er that breached the email sys­tem of this law firm that was facil­i­tat­ing mas­sive amounts of tax eva­sion by huge num­bers of pow­er­ful and wealthy peo­ple. We need to con­sid­er that hack­ers are a kind of whistle­blow­er, and we need to give them the same pro­tec­tions that we give to whistle­blow­ers work­ing with­in pub­lic bod­ies or organ­i­sa­tions.

Mason: Now I’m not sure how much you can and you can’t tell us, Lauri, but appar­ent­ly you’re now work­ing as what’s com­mon­ly known as a white hack hack­er. You might not be able to tell us what you’re work­ing on, but appar­ent­ly you worked on advis­ing the NHS dur­ing some of the WannaCry scan­dal. I just won­der if you can tell us a lit­tle bit more about what it means to be a white hack hack­er—if indeed you are or are not one—and I won­der if that form of hack­ing still pro­vides you the same sort of sat­is­fac­tion.

Love: Just to cor­rect you there, it’s white hat, and it comes from the Western movies where the good gun­slinger, the Sheriff, would wear the white hat, and the bad gun­slinger, the cattle-rustlers and the crim­i­nals would wear the black hat. This is kind of this dichoto­my of whether you’re working—and it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly between good and bad, but it’s more about work­ing with­in a sys­tem ver­sus work­ing out with the sys­tem in a more chaot­ic capac­i­ty. In real­i­ty, very few peo­ple are exclu­sive­ly white hat or exclu­sive­ly black hat. People tend to wear dif­fer­ent hats at dif­fer­ent times depend­ing on what they’re up to. You’d be sur­prised how many peo­ple in the indus­try hone their skills not through legit­i­mate means of learn­ing them. They played around on the inter­net and con­sid­ered it to be their play­ground, and had the ben­e­fit of nev­er falling foul of law enforce­ment. Or if they did, they man­aged to not lose ten years in prison and get reha­bil­i­tat­ed into mak­ing big bucks, keep­ing the world safe.

We need peo­ple to do this because we have a mas­sive skills short­age, with the entire world eco­nom­i­cal­ly, through the secu­ri­ty of com­put­er sys­tems. The good exam­ple as you said is the NHS, and this WannaCry ran­somware, or osten­si­bly ran­somware. It turned out to be a state spon­sored attack that claimed to be ran­somware, but it crip­pled the com­put­er sys­tems of the National Health Service and many oth­er organ­i­sa­tions around the world. There was an inabil­i­ty for the com­put­er secu­ri­ty indus­try to respond fast enough, just because of insti­tu­tion­al iner­tia.

I sort of helped organ­ise an ad-hoc mili­tia or a group of hob­by­ists who do work in the indus­try but who do this in their spare time, just to help get the infor­ma­tion out. In a sit­u­a­tion like that the faster you can get out the infor­ma­tion and tell peo­ple how to respond to min­imise their threat or to mit­i­gate the risks if they had been breached, then the more dam­age can be avoid­ed. It was the first real sit­u­a­tion where peo­ple could die direct­ly if that CAT scan­ner, that piece of med­ical equip­ment can’t be used, and some­body needs that machine to have the diag­no­sis or to have the treat­ment to sur­vive. There could have been a direct loss of life as a result of this breach.

So, yes today I work as an Information Security Consultant, a Security Operations Engineer. Not because I’ve giv­en up on my prin­ci­ples or sold out to the sys­tem but because A—I have bills to pay but B—most impor­tant­ly, we need peo­ple to keep us safe. I don’t believe there isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly a ten­sion between these two capac­i­ties. What I do wor­ry about is over-legitimation of hack­ers can suck out dis­abil­i­ty to act as dis­sent­ing agents. So I believe we have to have both. We have to have peo­ple being brought up and trained to work with­in the sys­tems but we also need to main­tain an aspect of the hack­er ethos which is will­ing to ques­tion and is will­ing to say where it is poten­tial­ly nec­es­sary, I will step out­side of what is con­sid­ered accept­able behav­iour to cre­ate the con­di­tions to fix some­thing that is bro­ken.”

Mason: Maureen, I just want to turn to you again. I just won­der if you have any ques­tions for Lauri?

Webb: I’d like to bounce a the­sis off of you, Lauri. One thing that I heard from aca­d­e­mics at MIT and Harvard that are embrac­ing hack­er themed projects and study­ing hack­er pol­i­tics: they’re very inter­est­ed in sys­tems the­o­ry. I guess at a sim­ple lev­el there’s the idea that you have pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive feed­back in sys­tems and that you need to be able to assim­i­late feed­back to be able to crack sys­tems. But anoth­er idea that was put to me was this idea of emer­gence. That change comes about not in nec­es­sar­i­ly the lin­ear ways that we tend to think of—like I might think of as a civil­i­tar­i­an. If we could just con­vince enough peo­ple to use alter­na­tive hack­er tools, we could get rid of Facebook, right? So the idea of a crit­i­cal mass of peo­ple. But rather that change comes about—especially with technology—where there might be some small change in the micro that trig­gers emer­gent effects that change the macro sys­tem.

That gave me a new way of think­ing about hack­ers and why they were so impor­tant, because if we don’t know how tech­nol­o­gy is going to evolve and some­thing small could take us in a total­ly new direc­tion, then we do need that exper­i­men­ta­tion at the edges. So, how do hack­ers think of sys­tems? Because real­ly, it’s sys­tems that you’re deal­ing with. I mean, you were talk­ing about giant com­put­er sys­tems just now, glob­alised com­put­er sys­tems.

Love: I guess there’s two aspects to that. One to do with the feedback—positive or neg­a­tive feedback—but also the inter­re­la­tion of the hack­er and the sys­tem as it’s defined in a lim­it­ed scope. A set of inter­act­ing com­po­nents under­stood to inter­act in a lim­it­ed, finite, pre­scribed way. There’s this notion of cyber­net­ics which was this kind of weird, quirky sci­ence that emerged in the lat­ter half of the last cen­tu­ry, and is still ongo­ing but it’s nev­er real­ly bro­ken through to the main­stream. It comes from this Greek word kubernḗtēs. That was the tiller, the per­son who con­trolled the rud­der of a ship. They would ensure the ship sailed right by hav­ing a sys­tem where they’d look at a star or at a land­mark and they would con­trol the rud­der in response to how that drift­ed on their line of sight. The ship, the rud­der, and the human being and the thing off in the dis­tance in the future were work­ing togeth­er cohe­sive­ly and col­lec­tive­ly. The cyber­net­ic con­cept is that we don’t just have these dig­i­tal sys­tems, these com­put­er sys­tems, but that they also have a com­plex rela­tion­ship with the peo­ple that are involved. Not just the users that are using them in the ways that it was intend­ed to be and that it was imag­ined to be but also the hack­ers com­ing in and dis­rupt­ing that, and chang­ing that. Sometimes tak­ing it apart and putting it togeth­er dif­fer­ent­ly.

So we have this idea in sci­ence of reduc­tivism. That you can under­stand the behav­iour of the whole from the behav­iour of small com­po­nents and how they work togeth­er deter­min­is­ti­cal­ly. However, some­times you can­not nec­es­sar­i­ly extrap­o­late from the small scale behav­iour what will hap­pen glob­al­ly, because of the com­plex­i­ty of the inter­ac­tions and so you have these emer­gent behav­iours that can­not be fore­seen or pre­dict­ed, and some­times this can be prob­lem­at­ic. It can be chaot­ic in the neg­a­tive way such as in the rise of ran­somware.

But, it can also be pro­duc­tive and ben­e­fi­cial where some­thing gets jammed or ossi­fied or co-opted by the cap­i­tal­is­tic encroach­ment of banal­i­ty on the web, where this sort of quirky open cre­ative sys­tem of some­thing like GeoCities got con­vert­ed now into this very con­trolled, reg­i­ment­ed sys­tem in Facebook pub­lish­ing. Where this can get stuck in the rut, that is now over­come by this emer­gent behav­iour and that depends again on the com­plex­i­ty of the inter­ac­tion. On there being some scope to inter­face with those sys­tems cre­ative­ly.

Mason: We have a ques­tion from artist, Sarah Selby, who’s ask­ing, Are you con­cerned about the impacts of pri­va­cy fol­low­ing what’s hap­pen­ing in response to COVID-19?” We’ve seen in the press that there’s been argu­ments for apps that track our move­ments to know who we’ve come into con­tact with. We’ve seen those sorts of apps be very effec­tive in oth­er parts of the world but they do raise a cer­tain degree of pri­va­cy con­cern. Do you think there’s going to be an increase in sur­veil­lance in response to COVID-19? And if so, how do we respond to that as hack­ers?

 Love: We’re in this weird sit­u­a­tion now where, for the first time, real­ly more than ever, there’s an align­ment in the inter­ests of peo­ple who do not want this virus to spread fur­ther and to result in more pre­ventable deaths, and fan­tasies or the wet dreams of the sur­veil­lance state in terms of har­ness­ing these devices that we have in our pock­ets, that track us wher­ev­er we go with­out our real, informed con­sent.

It’s a dif­fi­cult one because yes—it’s very use­ful in terms of con­tact trac­ing. Once we get enough test­ing to deter­mine if some­one has been infect­ed, who they might have infect­ed by their con­tact. We know that the intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus use these pow­ers already but they’re gen­er­al­ly a lit­tle bit cir­cum­spect about let­ting on. What we’ll prob­a­bly see now, if it has­n’t already hap­pened, is that the gov­ern­ments will say, Yes, we’re now using your dig­i­tal devices to fol­low you every­where, so that we can help con­tain this pan­dem­ic.” That is a good thing, in its lim­it­ed scope for that pur­pose. Unfortunately it breach­es the Bulwark of the unthink­able, and so once some­thing has been done for a legit­i­mate pur­pose, the genie is out of the bot­tle and unfor­tu­nate­ly the ten­den­cy is to broad­en the use of these pow­ers. It may be a lot hard­er to argue that this should not be done for some oth­er pur­pose, once we have acqui­esced to using it for this lim­it­ed use­ful pur­pose.

Mason: Maureen, I just won­der your thoughts on what the impact of COVID-19 is going to be towards the way in which cit­i­zens are sur­veilled?

Webb: Yeah, I fear that it will open up a whole new era of mass sur­veil­lance and new tech­nolo­gies, If the events of 911 and the secu­ri­ty indus­tri­al com­plex that grew after 911 are any­thing to go by, com­pa­nies will find a way to make a lot of mon­ey. The risk will be fetishised and there will be func­tion creep of the laws that are put in place, and the tech­nolo­gies that are put in place.

It’s tough, though, because obvi­ous­ly a glob­al pan­dem­ic is a his­toric event. Public health is para­mount. But I heard a real­ly inter­est­ing cri­tique in the last cou­ple of days about how you get more coop­er­a­tion, you get more effec­tive out­comes when you rely on the col­lec­tive good­ness of peo­ple than when you impose author­i­tar­i­an solu­tions that are puni­tive. So if you need peo­ple to coop­er­ate in a glob­al pan­dem­ic, you need an informed and col­lab­o­ra­tive pop­u­la­tion. Not an unin­formed and coerced pop­u­la­tion. I think we need to be inter­ro­gat­ing and ques­tion­ing what they pro­pose to bring in. I think it’s kind of laugh­able that we could have these technologies—apparently China has already been using these very intru­sive tech­nolo­gies right since the begin­ning of this outbreak—and yet we don’t have effec­tive test­ing. We don’t have the sim­plest effec­tive test­ing, or even masks which are the most rudi­men­ta­ry tech­nol­o­gy. This whole mod­el can’t pro­duce masks for their health­care work­ers and yet it could impose this huge appa­ra­tus of sur­veil­lance on us, and jus­ti­fy it with this nar­ra­tive of risk.

When it came to anti-terrorism, they could­n’t even prove that the sur­veil­lance had been effec­tive, that the NSA have even stopped a sin­gle ter­ror­ist plot with the mas­sive amounts of sur­veil­lance that went on.

Mason: We have anoth­er ques­tion from YouTube which is one about edu­ca­tion. It’s real­ly about how we reframe the idea of hack­ing as a skill that we can look at and put in a pos­i­tive light. When we’ve come to edu­ca­tion, we’ve heard the idea of com­pu­ta­tion­al think­ing, but we haven’t real­ly heard the word hack­ing used. So I guess the ques­tion from Diana is, how do we reframe the word hack­ing as a skill, that puts it in a pos­i­tive light so that we can do bet­ter edu­ca­tion around its use?

Love: So I would con­sid­er hack­ing to be a new form of lit­er­a­cy and also a new form of phys­i­cal fit­ness, in a way. If you’re phys­i­cal­ly fit then you’re nim­ble, you’re able to move quick­ly on your feet, you’re able to respond to a threat in a way that will min­imise the risk of harm to your­self, and you’re also able to help oth­ers in a phys­i­cal sit­u­a­tion if you have some­thing like self-defence skills.

Also, lit­er­a­cy enabled peo­ple to par­tic­i­pate in polit­i­cal and civic sys­tems in a way that they could not before. The advent of the print­ing press by Gutenberg mas­sive­ly opened up the pos­si­bil­i­ties for reli­gions amongst the peo­ple who belonged to church­es, to under­stand the dif­fer­ent scrip­tures that they were sup­pos­ed­ly believ­ing in and deriv­ing ben­e­fit from. We saw short­ly after the print­ing press was invent­ed the move­ment of pam­phle­teer­ing that again opened up the pow­er to peo­ple not work­ing in the polit­i­cal par­ties to sim­ply write a mes­sage out, to get it print­ed, and to have a mas­sive effect on the polit­i­cal dis­course of the coun­tries they were in.

It’s the same with hack­ing. It’s a kind of lit­er­a­cy, a skillset that enables you not just to be a rule-taker, to use a phrase that we’re unfor­tu­nate­ly overus­ing in the con­text of Brexit, but to be an rule-maker or a rule-changer. To be empow­ered, to engage in the dialec­tic of tech­nol­o­gy on an even foot­ing with the peo­ple who design sys­tems and impose those sys­tems upon us. So I think it needs to be under­stood and explained, and evan­ge­lised in that way. In that this will empow­er you in the same way that being able to read and write empow­ers you. In the same way that being phys­i­cal­ly fit empow­ers you.

Webb: I see how it can very much be syn­ony­mous with the idea of dis­trib­uted pow­er. It’s peo­ple tak­ing charge of things, tak­ing things into their own hands when com­plex sys­tems are not serv­ing them. It’s about dis­trib­uted pow­er. It’s a very pos­i­tive con­cept in that way. In some ways, this glob­al pan­dem­ic is going to force us to unwind some of these glob­al sys­tems and devel­op more local com­mu­ni­ty eco­nom­ics and sys­tems, and sup­ply chains.

Hacking, orig­i­nal­ly, is a tech­ni­cal prac­tice. It’s an ethos of tech­nol­o­gists but it’s increas­ing­ly becom­ing a metaphor for a new kind of social activism which is all about dis­trib­uted democ­ra­cy, dis­trib­uted pow­er, dis­trib­uted deci­sion mak­ing.

Love: I think it’s real­ly impor­tant to high­light now that we’re at this his­toric moment as a result of this pan­dem­ic. Not just the imme­di­ate med­ical effects of peo­ple being inca­pac­i­tat­ed but the eco­nom­ic knock-on effect of hav­ing to have these lock­downs, and to have this…I don’t think I can go so far as to say con­trolled, but this man­dat­ed shut­down of eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty. Just at a time when we have been expecting—the sooth­say­ers and the prophets have been expect­ing there to be a mas­sive break­down any­way as a result of cli­mate change. As a result of the lim­it­ed imag­i­na­tion of peo­ple in pow­er to respond to the changes in the world.

It seems hor­ri­ble to say this on the backs of so many peo­ple dying hor­rif­i­cal­ly, but there is a mas­sive oppor­tu­ni­ty in this shut­down for space of pos­si­bil­i­ty to be opened up. Where we can imag­ine the end of work or the replace­ment, the reimag­i­na­tion of work, and also a return to local dis­trib­uted sys­tems that will be more eco­log­i­cal­ly robust and sus­tain­able in the face of the mas­sive dis­rup­tions that can be caused by cli­mate change, and also the break­down in tra­di­tion­al pol­i­tics that we’re see­ing glob­al­ly in the rise of author­i­tar­i­an­ism.

We need the cre­ativ­i­ty of the mind­set of hack­ing. We also need the abil­i­ty to dream up sys­tems where local organ­i­sa­tion­al struc­tures can take up the slack, where mas­sive­ly cen­tralised struc­tures are not able to keep up or will fail because of supply-line fail­ures or oth­er black swan con­se­quences of this glob­al cri­sis. We need to all start hack­ing in our local com­mu­ni­ties as soon as pos­si­ble, and as enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly as pos­si­ble, so that we have some chance of com­ing out of this calami­tous event stronger and more resilient.

Mason: I love that idea, Lauri, that it’s not just about hack­ing with com­put­ers, but it’s about hack­ing our com­mu­ni­ties and the sys­tems that we have today, right now. I’m going to grab one more ques­tion, and it’s ask­ing about blockchain tech­nol­o­gy, and whether it’s use­ful? Whether it’s a major hack­tivism enabler?

Webb: I think when peer-to-peer tech­nol­o­gy is com­bined with blockchain. So peer-to-peer tech­nol­o­gy allows one to one exchange of val­ue and also the cre­ation of vir­tu­al super com­put­ers with­out cen­tralised author­i­ty. But the prob­lem with just peer-to-peer tech­nol­o­gy is that it does­n’t ensure trust, where­as blockchain added to peer-to-peer can guar­an­tee trust, just by cre­at­ing these numer­ic for­mu­las which fit togeth­er like links in a chain. They’re like a record. It’s like a dis­trib­uted ledger that one can rely on because it’s cre­at­ed with numer­ic links.

Once you get your head around that, you realise that they have the com­put­er pow­er and they have the trust mech­a­nism to cre­ate huge ven­tures. You could cre­ate alter­na­tive stock exchanges. You could cre­ate alter­na­tive mon­e­tary sys­tems. Bitcoin is an example—it’s a fair­ly flawed example—but it’s the pro­to­type for blockchain tech­nol­o­gy.

Potentially, we could replace cor­rupt lega­cy insti­tu­tions like the finan­cialised econ­o­my and the flawed stock mar­ket with these new alter­na­tives that could rival the old, rigged sys­tems. Blockchain could help cre­ate elec­toral sys­tems that are tam­per­proof. There are any num­ber of imag­i­na­tive things out there that peo­ple are start­ing to exper­i­ment with, envi­sion­ing blockchain. Though it’s a very new tech­nol­o­gy so it’s got to be tak­en with a grain of salt.

Love: Yeah, so this comes down to the pow­er of cryp­tog­ra­phy. We could have talked about this a bit more if we’d had a bit more time to go into it but one of the things that cryp­tog­ra­phy enables is the abil­i­ty to…it began with pass­ing mes­sages with­out hav­ing to trust the medi­um with which you passed them. So whether that’s the tele­graph wire or the mes­sen­ger or some­thing like that. That’s the first foundation—that the author and the recip­i­ent can have this con­fi­dence that it’s not being eaves­dropped along the way. But then these cryp­to­graph­ic tech­nolo­gies have evolved to reduce the need to trust inter­me­di­aries more gen­er­al­ly. Rather than just in mes­sage pass­ing but in free blockchain cre­at­ing a his­to­ry of trans­ac­tions, so that there is a shared idea of what is real and that takes away the need to trust finan­cial inter­me­di­aries like banks and the glob­al finan­cial sys­tem. That trust, unfor­tu­nate­ly, was poor­ly placed and we had a mas­sive fail­ure because of the reck­less gam­bling of peo­ple work­ing with­in that sys­tem who thought that they could con­tin­ue extract­ing val­ue by dis­trib­ut­ing risk and dis­trib­ut­ing risk, and unfor­tu­nate­ly that risk sud­den­ly got called. A tech­ni­cal debt got called all at once and we’re still pick­ing up the pieces. We can expect that to hap­pen again as a con­se­quence of this COVID-19 pan­dem­ic. All of the entrenched risk and cen­tral­i­sa­tion of finan­cial pow­er is going to get called as a debt by real­i­ty. We might need to have sys­tems to take up the slack when some of those cen­tralised sys­tems break down.

So blockchain, not just through finance but more gen­er­al­ly through the abil­i­ty to have a shared state and a shared real­i­ty that we can all trust. Not because we aren’t trust­ing in peo­ple to act hon­est­ly, but because we remove the require­ment for peo­ple to act hon­est­ly, and the pos­si­bil­i­ty for them to act dis­hon­est­ly where the hon­esty is vouch­safe by the code itself, by the pro­to­cols and how they work. As Maureen said, we’re just at the very start of this. Some peo­ple con­sid­er it to be the fourth indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tion and this ties into dis­trib­uted sys­tems and peer-to-peer sys­tems.

One of the things that I’ve imag­ined for a long time is what might save the world. It’s a big ongo­ing inter­est of mine. It’s local exchange trad­ing schemes, so that we don’t have this one glob­al reserve cur­ren­cy which is the United States petrodol­lar which is backed up—or is high­ly depen­dent on—the extrac­tion of fos­sil fuels which we can no longer do if we want to have an envi­ron­ment to live in in the future. But it’s also backed up by the threat of mil­i­tary might and it gives dis­pro­por­tion­ate pow­er to the United States to deflate its own cur­ren­cy and inflate its own cur­ren­cy. This caus­es all sorts of geo-political ten­sions.

Mason: Maureen, I had two final ques­tions to wrap up this con­ver­sa­tion. The first one was, in this day and age, does it feel like it’s become eas­i­er to hack human beings than it has to hack com­put­ers? Does the prac­tice of cap­tol­ogy and the actions of Cambridge Analytica prove that some­times it’s just eas­i­er to use the cur­rent sys­tem and manip­u­late human beings rather than hack those tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tems?

Webb: Well I guess it depends who’s doing the hack­ing but I think the Cambridge Analytica sto­ry was a very dispir­it­ing, sober­ing sto­ry about how easy it is to hack our peo­ple and our beliefs. All of us, now, are liv­ing in these bub­bles of infor­ma­tion and to that extent, I think we all have to become aware that we’re becom­ing more and more divid­ed from each oth­er, because we’re los­ing this shared knowl­edge or sources of infor­ma­tion that allow us to come to con­sen­sus, because we’re shar­ing our assump­tions. It real­ly does mat­ter how we gath­er knowl­edge and how we analyse it, and that we have some shared facts from which to come to our con­clu­sions.

So, yeah. I think human beings are very easy to hack. But I think hack­ers are show­ing that sys­tems also can be hacked. This cen­tu­ry could hold some real­ly big changes and good changes.

Mason: And if it is becom­ing eas­i­er to hack human beings, then I guess what can hack­ers do to hack back?

Love: So I would actu­al­ly argue against the becom­ing’ part of that the­sis because it’s always been that humans are the weak­est link. The canon­i­cal exam­ple is Kevin Mitnick, one of the most famous or infa­mous hack­ers. He was actu­al­ly pre­dom­i­nant­ly a social engi­neer, so he would call peo­ple up in the tech cen­tre. He’d get the num­ber by exper­i­men­tal­ly dialling lots of num­bers or by reach­ing into the bins, and he’d put on a lit­tle accent and say, Can you find this modem? Can you read out the num­ber from the back of it? What’s the pass­word to get into this?” and he’d con­vince them by prey­ing on peo­ple’s nat­ur­al social ten­den­cy to be trust­ing. If you hear the right jar­gon, if you’re put into a bit of ten­sion and you’re con­vinced that some­thing bad is going to hap­pen if you don’t help, peo­ple will go along with that.

It remains the case today that you can get a lot further…for exam­ple in my job we do pen­e­tra­tion tests and some­times you can hack the sys­tems but some­times it’s a lot eas­i­er to hack the peo­ple that are in a posi­tion of trust with­in those sys­tems. At the moment we have a dif­fi­cul­ty with this because of the rise of dis­in­for­ma­tion. People no longer have as much trust in main­stream media—in the BBC or CNN—unfortunately, because they were lied to about the rea­sons that we went to war in the Middle East and var­i­ous oth­er things. So peo­ple are right­ly sus­pi­cious, but that’s cre­at­ed a vac­u­um of trust which is exploit­ed by some peo­ple in the alter­na­tive news sys­tem who are not nec­es­sar­i­ly act­ing out of good inten­tions, and more recent­ly by nation states that are seek­ing to use the chaos of peo­ple not nec­es­sar­i­ly know­ing what is true to spread con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries or to cre­ate chaos with­in the polit­i­cal sys­tems through bots and trolls.

This has now been har­nessed by Cambridge Analytica so that peo­ple who are with­in the polit­i­cal sys­tem are using these dirty tricks, pay­ing for micro-targeted Facebook adverts that are based on dossiers of peo­ple from infor­ma­tion that has been col­lect­ed with­out their informed con­sent and that allows this psy­cho­graph­ic pro­fil­ing so that you know exact­ly the right things to say to cer­tain demo­graph­ics of peo­ple on Facebook. It allows such nar­row tar­get­ing of adverts that it’s much more effec­tive to throw cam­paign mon­ey into that, and it real­ly rais­es the ques­tion of, do we have a work­ing democ­ra­cy where peo­ple are hav­ing such a dis­tort­ed view of the polit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion, that they’re effec­tive­ly being manip­u­lat­ed? It’s always been the case that politi­cians have sought to manip­u­late people—that’s what dem­a­gogue is, but it’s becom­ing so much more effec­tive to do that at scale now that we real­ly need to have a seri­ous con­ver­sa­tion.

I think the only real solu­tion to that is—two things that we can do. One is to break up the cen­tralised tech plat­forms that we’re so behold­en to where we’re treat­ed like cat­tle and live­stock by Facebook and Twitter. We’re not the users, we’re the prod­uct, and that’s going ter­ri­bly wrong. So we can break that up into a more fed­er­at­ed sys­tem, where there’s more local auton­o­my and it’s hard­er to sub­vert them at scale. The oth­er thing is lit­er­a­cy. We real­ly need to rebuild the mas­sive deficit in crit­i­cal think­ing fac­ul­ties. We have not been encour­aged and we have not been taught in schools to engage with asser­tions and infor­ma­tion that’s pre­sent­ed to us crit­i­cal­ly. To try and ver­i­fy things inde­pen­dent­ly, to not just run from one author­i­ty, that we’ve lost trust in, to the next alter­na­tive author­i­ty that we then throw our trust into and we end up believ­ing ridicu­lous things like 5G Towers caus­ing virus­es or flat Earth. I’m hav­ing to fight these peo­ple that I used to encour­age to be crit­i­cal and to be oppos­ing the author­i­ty of the main­stream nar­ra­tive, who have now gone so far down the rab­bit­hole of believ­ing their alter­na­tive sources that they’ve been manip­u­lat­ed. They’re now risk­ing the con­tain­ment mea­sures that we need to fight the virus because they think it’s all a hoax or they’re wor­ried about a manda­to­ry vac­cine because they’ve bought into these anti-vax con­cerns. That could risk our abil­i­ty to recov­er from this cri­sis, so it’s very dif­fi­cult, and it’s an uphill strug­gle to get peo­ple to engage in doubt and para­noia. Not just doing it more, but to do it right. To actu­al­ly hone that skill, to be crit­i­cal.

Mason: That in some way feels like what will be our great­est chal­lenge for hack­ers to com­bat over the next, pos­si­bly five years. At this stage I want to thank both of you. You’ve been absolute­ly incred­i­ble guests. Thank you.

Webb: Thank you.

Love: Thanks very much Luke. Up the rebels, and free Julian.

Mason: Yes! Thank you guys.

Thank you to Maureen and Lauri for shar­ing their thoughts on the vital role hack­ers play in soci­ety.

You can also find out more by pur­chas­ing Maureen Webb’s new book, Coding Democracy: How Hackers are Disrupting Power, Surveillance and Authoritarianism’—available now from the MIT Press.

And, don’t for­get you can watch the full unedit­ed video of this con­ver­sa­tion at Futures Podcast dot net—where you can also find out about all of our live stream events

If you like what you’ve heard, then you can sub­scribe for our lat­est episode. Or fol­low us on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram: @FUTURESPodcast.

More episodes, tran­scripts and show notes can be found at Futures Podcast dot net.

Thank you for lis­ten­ing to the Futures Podcast.

Further Reference

Episode page, with intro­duc­to­ry and pro­duc­tion notes. Transcript orig­i­nal­ly by Beth Colquhoun, repub­lished with per­mis­sion (mod­i­fied).


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.