| ---[ 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 | |