Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mindcrash 2603 days ago
Not needed, we hackers - more or less - already have one for about 35 years:

1) Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!

2) All information should be free.

3) Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.

4) Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.

5) You can create art and beauty on a computer.

6) Computers can change your life for the better.

7) Don't litter other people's data.

8) Make public data available, protect private data.

Originally penned down by Steven Levy in "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" and slightly modified by the CCC after that.

Source: https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics

3 comments

I really enjoyed that book in particular, and generally appreciate that code, but I've always questioned the definition of information in this context.

There must be a line somewhere between authority and expertise—also information and intellectual property.

It's more that I don't think I understand, even though I've probably read [most of] the same books.

Where does a journalistic piece of writing fall? Certainly, and often, the results of an investigative piece of writing would be considered quite valuable information. Does that mean it should be free? If so, how should that work be funded in the future. Most efforts outside of selling the final product have failed disastrously. Most people want it for free—free as in free like rainfall. I suppose some software may fall under a similar question.

On authority—who gets to speak to a subject? Decentralizing "facts" has put us in the position where empirical evidence is actively opposed on baseless grounds, with decentralizing the ability to compound nonsensical ramblings and dress them up as if they are of equal value as something hypothesized, experimented on, iterated, and proven within the confines of our scientific process.

Those are two more practical and immediate questions, but a sibling comment also raised a salient point.

I like a lot of the points they make, but also think some of them are naive as they came before the normalizing of internet and computers.

Curious to hear from others on this one.

The medical code of ethics dates back, at least in sentiment, to Hippocrates. Legal codes of ethics draw on Daniel Webster, Thomas More, and so on back to Rome. If programming is going adopt a more heavyweight code of ethics, I don't want it to be in response to the news stories of the day - I'd much rather see us start with the admirable history of the field.

The whole image of amoral, selfish programming implies that we either lost sight of or failed to publicize the strong ethical stances which have been around for decades.

>All information should be free.

>protect private data.

How do you reconcile these? Data is information. Or is this another free vs Free (Kostenlos vs Frei) situation?

Using the first part of the "protect private data" line

Make public data available.

So then why are Facebook/Youtube getting criticized for not censoring the New Zealand shooter broadcast fast enough?