285 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
285 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
---[ Phrack Magazine Volume 8, Issue 52 January 26, 1998, article 09 of 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------[ On the Morality of Phreaking
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------[ Phrack Staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue of phone phreaking is an interesting topic for
|
|
discussion concerning morality. For those not familiar with this
|
|
topic, I will give a brief outline of the subject. Following the
|
|
outline of phreaking, I will analyze the issue of whether
|
|
phreaking as defined in the outline is a morally right act, from
|
|
the perspective of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Finally,
|
|
I will address the fallacies of each of the arguments they might
|
|
present concerning the topic and provide a determination of which
|
|
stands as the superior argument for this subject.
|
|
|
|
The meaning of phone phreaking has changed over the years;
|
|
its initial growth can be traced in a large part to a magazine
|
|
named TAP (Technical Assistance Program) started by Abbie Hoffman
|
|
in 1971 as part of his Youth International Party (YIPL) (Meinel,
|
|
5). The intent at this point in time was to utilize technology
|
|
in order to subvert government and big business institutions. As
|
|
time progressed, phreaking became less politically motivated and
|
|
instead was led more by technology enthusiasts interested in
|
|
learning about the phone systems and how they worked. In 1984,
|
|
2600 magazine was formed by Eric Corley in order to further this
|
|
spread of knowledge (Corley).
|
|
|
|
The definition of phone phreaking I will use for the
|
|
purposes of this paper is that which the prominent members of the
|
|
hacking/phreaking "scene" would use. In discussing the
|
|
motivations of a phone phreaker, I speak from both personal
|
|
experience and from numerous conversations with individual
|
|
phreakers over a period of years. Phreaking is the pursuit of
|
|
knowledge concerning how phone systems operate. The skills that
|
|
a phreaker learns in this pursuit of knowledge has the effect
|
|
that they can often gain control of a phone switch in order to
|
|
make add additional phone lines, modify billing information, and
|
|
other such activities, but these are generally considered
|
|
unrelated to that which an actual phreaker is interested in, and
|
|
I will focus only on the activities of those true phreakers that
|
|
are motivated by the desire for knowledge and not for other
|
|
gains. Generally however, phreaking does involve utilizing the
|
|
resources of a phone company switch without the permission of the
|
|
company owning it, in order to both explore its capabilities and
|
|
to communicate with other phreakers in order to share knowledge.
|
|
|
|
John Mill, given his views of morality as found in
|
|
Utilitarianism, would find that phone phreaking is a morally
|
|
right act. In order to find that an act is morally right, it
|
|
should have a net benefit in terms of the happiness it adds to
|
|
the world versus the opposite of happiness it causes (Mill, 7).
|
|
To show that phreaking is morally right, first it must be shown
|
|
that it does have a positive effect on the general happiness in
|
|
the world, and then proceed to show that any negative effects
|
|
that phreaking may have are sufficiently minor so as to be
|
|
outweighed by the positive effects. If the positive effects are
|
|
greater than the negative effects, then clearly the act is
|
|
morally right.
|
|
|
|
First, the actual benefit that phreaking has for the
|
|
individuals involved in it is not directly the pursuit of
|
|
happiness, but rather the pursuit of knowledge. Since morality
|
|
is determined by happiness, not knowledge, how knowledge relates
|
|
to happiness needs to be resolved. The reason this pursuit still
|
|
relates to morality is that individuals that are pursuing
|
|
knowledge for no motivation other than itself are doing so
|
|
because the gain of knowledge has become a part of those
|
|
individuals' happiness. It is in the same way that Mill argues
|
|
the pursuit of virtue can be reconciled with the pursuit of
|
|
happiness that knowledge can also be reconciled (Mill, 35-37).
|
|
|
|
Phreaking does have a benefit to the individuals that are
|
|
involved in its practice. This benefit is in the form of a gain
|
|
of knowledge concerning the phone systems. This knowledge is
|
|
gained in generally one of two ways, both of which are common
|
|
methods of learning and the reader will recognize. The first is
|
|
through experimentation and exploration. By accessing the phone
|
|
switch, phreakers are able to experiment with its capabilities
|
|
and teach themselves how to operate it. In the second case, the
|
|
phone switches that phreakers have learned to use are utilized as
|
|
a method of communication with other phreakers. The free
|
|
communication that comes about as a result of the phone system
|
|
knowledge that has been gained allows phreakers to exchange new
|
|
information and teach each other, either as peers or through a
|
|
teacher-pupil relationship, even more about the phone system. In
|
|
both cases, knowledge is gained, and as knowledge is a part of a
|
|
phreaker's happiness, the general happiness of the world is
|
|
increased.
|
|
|
|
Any negative impact phreaking has is minimal, and indirect.
|
|
The resources that are being used are possessed by phone
|
|
companies, corporations. A corporation of itself is not a moral
|
|
being, but a corporation has an effect on three different types
|
|
of people: stock holders, employees, and consumers.
|
|
|
|
A stock holder's interest in a corporation is purely on the
|
|
profits that it produces. Stockholders could be negatively
|
|
effected by phreakers if a phreaker causes a loss of revenue, or
|
|
an increase in costs. A loss in revenue for a phone company can
|
|
only occur if the phreaker uses some resource that if not in use
|
|
would otherwise be used by a paying customer, or if the phreaker
|
|
herself would have paid for the resource utilization if it had
|
|
not been attainable for free. In the first case, phone systems
|
|
use a technique called multiplexing to handle simultaneous phone
|
|
calls between switches. If a phone system is below capacity,
|
|
there are empty time slices or frequencies (depending on type of
|
|
trunk) in the data that is transmitted between switches. Adding
|
|
a new connection between switches involves only filling one of
|
|
these idle slots, with no degradation of quality for existing
|
|
phone calls, and no marginal cost associated with the additional
|
|
call. It is only in the case where a phone system is filled to
|
|
capacity that a phreaker using a slot would prevent an existing
|
|
customer from using the phone system, resulting in a loss of
|
|
revenue. In fact, phreakers being more cognizant of this fact
|
|
that the general public will purposely explore the phone system
|
|
when it is at its lowest capacity times (late at night and on
|
|
weekends) just to avoid this situation.
|
|
|
|
The second part of the stock holders interests is that a
|
|
phreaker would potentially pay for the phone calls she is making
|
|
for free. An attraction of phreaking is that it does not cost
|
|
money to involve ones self in, and most phreakers first start in
|
|
their youth when they do not have access to being able to pay for
|
|
phone calls to other phreakers, or even more to the point there
|
|
is no price they could pay to gain access to a switch. If the
|
|
phone company were to make this available at a price to
|
|
phreakers, almost universally they would not be able to afford
|
|
the price, and would have to stop their gains in knowledge in
|
|
that subject. This would not result in any additional revenue
|
|
for the phone company, only a loss of knowledge that the phreaker
|
|
could have otherwise gained.
|
|
|
|
Employees are only impacted if they are either aware of
|
|
something occurring, or have to perform some activity as a result
|
|
of a phreaker's activities. However, a phreaker only interacts
|
|
with the phone company's equipment in an under utilized state,
|
|
and not with employees. Further, phreakers do not cause damage
|
|
or interfere with the operation of the phone company's equipment,
|
|
and so require no employee intervention. In this manner, no
|
|
employees are affected by phreakers.
|
|
|
|
Finally, consumers are also not negatively impacted by
|
|
phreakers. A phreaker's interactions with switches does not
|
|
cause any disruptions in service or prevent consumers from using
|
|
the same switches simultaneously. Further, there is no
|
|
interaction that takes place with consumers as a result of a
|
|
phreaker's activities, and so they are never impacted in any
|
|
manner.
|
|
|
|
It is possible there can be a negative impact as a result of
|
|
the perception of phreakers and based on people with different
|
|
moral viewpoints than the utilitarian view. Some people are
|
|
scared by a phreaker's knowledge, and some people are intent on
|
|
protecting their resources even from those with moral pursuits.
|
|
These people may become agitated as a result of a phreaker's
|
|
activities, and although they have no utilitarian reason to be,
|
|
their agitation should still be considered. However, weighing
|
|
the moral righteousness of the knowledge being gained, an
|
|
agitation seems to be greatly outweighed. Based on these
|
|
criteria, it is clear from the utilitarian viewpoint phreaking is
|
|
overall beneficial and is morally right.
|
|
|
|
In contrast to the views of Mill, Immanuel Kant would not
|
|
find phreaking to be a moral act. In order to find an act moral
|
|
from a Kantian perspective, it must be in accord with duty (Kant,
|
|
9), universalized (Kant, 14), and then tested for a contradiction
|
|
in thought (Kant, 32) or a contradiction in will (Kant, 32). If
|
|
an action does not succeed in passing these tests, it can not be
|
|
a moral act.
|
|
|
|
The goal of phreaking, the pursuit of knowledge, is in
|
|
accordance with duty. An individual has an inclination towards
|
|
improving himself, gaining knowledge being one way of doing so,
|
|
so this would be an imperfect duty to self (Kant, 31).
|
|
|
|
There are several possible manners in which the act of
|
|
phreaking could be universalized. One could say "all people
|
|
should use the phone system without paying in order to pursue
|
|
knowledge." This is not a contradiction in thought, a phone
|
|
system that allowed anyone pursuing knowledge to use it free of
|
|
charge could exist and persist. However, there would be two
|
|
major results of having this sort of system. First, the loss in
|
|
revenue from large numbers of people no longer paying would
|
|
result in those communicating when not pursuing knowledge
|
|
subsidizing those that were. Second, a free phone system would
|
|
have an enormous increase in usage, causing it to reach its
|
|
capacity quickly and preventing it from being available to those
|
|
who needed to use it. Nobody wants to have to spend hours
|
|
attempting to make a phone call in order to get through, and so a
|
|
system of this type is a contradiction in will for most people,
|
|
and would thus not be moral.
|
|
|
|
A preferred universalization of phreaking would be "all
|
|
people interested in gaining knowledge should be able to freely
|
|
use unutilized corporate resources in order to do so." The goal
|
|
of a corporation is to maximize profits. If a corporation has
|
|
under utilized resources with a value, it is in the company's
|
|
interest to produce additional revenue based on those resources.
|
|
If a company does not have under utilized resources, it does not
|
|
apply to this universalization. The final case is if a company
|
|
has under utilized resources, but the resources have no value.
|
|
If they have no value, of what use would the resource be to a
|
|
person interested in gaining knowledge (i.e. if it was useful to
|
|
someone, it would have value). So it is a contradiction of
|
|
thought for a company to have an under utilized resource of value
|
|
for an extended period of time; if those seeking knowledge are
|
|
able to recognize an under utilized resource with value, then the
|
|
company would quickly realize that resource does have value, and
|
|
utilize its value for profit or else sell the resource off.
|
|
|
|
Because there is no manner in which phreaking can be
|
|
universalized so as to preserve its intent and not provide a
|
|
contradiction of thought or will, it can not be a moral act in
|
|
accordance with the views of Kant.
|
|
|
|
In analyzing which of Mill or Kant has a more solid
|
|
argument, it becomes clear that neither philosophy is ideal for
|
|
all situations. Both the utilitarian and Kantian viewpoints have
|
|
disadvantages that are addressed below, however as a whole the
|
|
Mill utilitarian view of phreaking provides a more rational view
|
|
that is applicable to those who are phreakers.
|
|
|
|
First, the utilitarian viewpoints of Mill only considers the
|
|
individual act in the context of the current state of the world
|
|
in deciding if it is moral That is, a single act may in all
|
|
cases contribute to the general happiness of the world, but it
|
|
may also leave the world changed in some other respect that does
|
|
not add to or take away from the general happiness. However, the
|
|
change that has taken place may very will have an impact on how
|
|
that same act or a completely unrelated act would impact the
|
|
world so as to make what was once moral now immoral. Although
|
|
the potential for alternative moral acts remain in that world,
|
|
and so you have not reduced its potential for happiness, what it
|
|
has done is impacted the available choices of others in how they
|
|
can go about acting in a moral manner. This is not a concern of
|
|
Mill, but of those interested in freedom, as an end to itself,
|
|
actions promoting the general happiness may adversely affect the
|
|
freedom of others to act in a moral manner.
|
|
|
|
The view Kant gives of morality provides that if an act can
|
|
not be universally applied, it can not be morally right. In the
|
|
case of phreaking, is it possible that it is at some point for
|
|
some people a morally right act to phreak, but not for all people
|
|
at all times? The basis for this argument is that there are some
|
|
people who are both honestly extremely interested in the phone
|
|
systems and do not have the resources to explore their interest
|
|
in any reasonable fashion for some period of time. The typical
|
|
case is with a phreaker is a young adolescent that has become
|
|
intrigued with phones. I would contend that for one that is
|
|
truly interested in learning and has no alternative means, that
|
|
it is morally right for that person to phreak.
|
|
|
|
However, as that person grows older and gains access to
|
|
resources, alternative means become available for him to continue
|
|
to learn about the phone systems (money buys resources, a job at
|
|
the phone company provides an immense opportunity to learn). At
|
|
the point where alternative means are available, it is no longer
|
|
moral for that person to phreak. Where exactly that point occurs
|
|
is a blurred line, but it is certainly not a universal law as
|
|
Kant would imply.
|
|
|
|
In summary, the subject of phreaking is certainly a
|
|
controversial subject and would be viewed by many as an out of
|
|
hand immoral activity. But, at closer examination it is actually
|
|
something that is done for very moral reasons and although the
|
|
morality of a phreaker may not necessarily correspond to the
|
|
morality of all others in society, it is certainly in the mind of
|
|
the true phreaker a moral activity in which they are engaging,
|
|
with intelligent rational premises backing up their moral views.
|
|
Although Kant may not agree with the moral views that are held by
|
|
the phreaker, the individual circumstances confronted by the
|
|
individual are not considered and if morality can be decided on
|
|
an individual basis, as Mill allows, then it may just be that the
|
|
Kantian view may be too restricting to account for contemporary
|
|
issues faced in today's technological society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
----[ EOF
|
|
|