"Which Do We Prefer: Neanderthals or Hackers?"

by Paul Abramson

Decades ago, a software "hacker" was a guy who could get things done.

He would contrive shortcuts and fixes that others had overlooked.  He (usually a "he") understood what the computers were capable of separate from the official software.

Some folks remember the 1960s with the muscle cars.  Back then, a young man could buy a stock car and start making his own modifications.  With some ingenuity, he could significantly increase the horsepower - far beyond what Detroit had originally intended.  It was a challenge to him and his friends.  Each man could customize his rod and make something unique.

Many modern day computer hackers are in a similar situation today.

Let's think about it: Our official software is full of holes and weaknesses.  I could take you to a dozen websites with software to crack into computers and reset the passwords.  It is easy.

Like the muscle cars of the 1960s, modern desktops, laptops, and mobile devices are easily modified.

So why don't we co-opt these guys?  Why are we letting Neanderthals push their fists down with the attitude of "No more hackers.  Nope.  Duh, no more.  We stop them."

We should invent awards for hackers (who help us), not long prison sentences.  Come on.

In the news in May there were stories about a man who has figured out how to hack into commercial jets, using the on-board entertainment system.  Wow, innovative!

Neanderthals: "We stop him. Make go away."

Think!  Instead, would you have rather that some malevolent Al-Qaeda or ISIS hacker(s) had figured this out first?  How does 20 or 30 international flights dropping into the oceans one day for no apparent reason sound to you?

If one of our hackers figures out and reports a weakness, let's give him or her a medal and a reward!  I am, of course, discussing non-destructive hackers, which most of them are, at least the ones I know.

A teenage boy could either be in the Boy Scouts earning merit badges, or making model rockets fly, or lighting things on fire.  Direction and purpose are needed, I think.  Make the challenges and opportunities positive!  Harness the hackers in a positive way.

When Motorola, for example, makes a new home modem/router model, give the FCC ten of them to put online where hackers can hammer on them for two weeks or so.  Let them try to break in and get around them.  Reward the guys who can "do the most damage,' which Motorola then has to fix prior to the next round of FCC (with hacker help) testing.

Three months later, Motorola (in this example) could begin sales of a product that would then protect 100,000 consumers (or a million, depending upon sales), rather than, like now, leaving them open (with default access codes) to malevolent hackers from China or elsewhere.  Does this strategy make sense?

In late June, it appears that the Peoples' Republic of China successfully penetrated United States government database computers (in 2014, but no one knew) and downloaded all personnel files on some four million federal government employees (soon followed by other serious compromises!).

The security software had a name like "Einstein."  First, let's rename it to "Dumb and Dumber" and then let's empower those best able to help us stop any future security breaches - before they occur.

Let us reward hackers that help us.

Let's stop the Neanderthals who want to leave us vulnerable to mass ID theft, our national power rid being shut down one day, and other very clear and present dangers!