Hacker history and Sweden

Jörgen Nissen

In this article I shall devote myself to a group who have generated some concern and voluminous writings: hackers. I will show that there are in many respects important discrepancies between these young peoples’ own experiences and what is said about them.

The word hacker itself presents a problem because it implies several different things. The hacker epithet is difficult to use since hackers today are associated both with illegal computer trespass and with social recluses who sit in front of a computer screen rather than socializing with other people. Joseph Weizenbaum (1976: 116) described in 1976 what he called compulsory programmers:

 

Bright young men of dishevelled appearance, often with sunken glowing eyes, can be seen seated at computer consoles, their arms tensed and waiting to fire their fingers, already poised to strike, at the buttons and keys / ... / Their rumpled clothes, their unwashed and unshaven faces, and their uncombed hair all testify that they are oblivious to their bodies and to the world around them. They exist, at least when so engaged, only through and for computers.

 

They have also been described as young computer geniuses who, with the help of their brilliance, penetrate all of the world’s computers. This picture is misleading in many ways. Firstly, the hacker epithet was created among the computer interested themselves and is if anything an honorary title that is bestowed upon a person who bas done something admirable ‑ for example found a good solution to a programming problem. Secondly, neither the illegal activities nor the ‘social recluses’ correspond to the real activity or the personalities involved. Therefore, I will sometimes use the expression computer captivated youth but ask the readers to remember that they regard themselves as hackers.[1]

 

A world of their own

Cyberspace ‑ the word originates from William Gibson’s book Neuromancer (1984) where it stands for the 3‑d displaying of computer information into which it is possible to mind‑meld. In fact, one may apply all senses while at the same time the body is left outside. Through the 1990s the word the cyberspace has been widely used but at the same time it has come to stand for the less advanced possibilities that today’s computer technology offers. The nearest that we get today to Gibson’s version is virtual reality (VR), at present commonly consisting of a VR helmet and computer glove that make it possible for a person using sight and hand signals to participate in an environment created completely by computers. This has been used in both computer games and architects’ work. For example, VR technology makes it possible for architects to ‘enter’ a house which only exists on the drawing‑board.

Cyberspace has also come to symbolize the existing message systems between computer users the world over. In this sense cyberspace refers only to the possibility of exchanging written messages (cither directly, ’on‑line’ or with the help of electronic mailboxes). It is here that we find most of the people in contact with ‘cyberspace’. But, we are far from the concept that Gibson intended. Perhaps the youth upon whom I focus in this article have experienced some form of cyberspace, but I have chosen to describe that which they have in common as a ‘micro world’. By this I refer to the computer captivated youths’ communication channels, activities, arenas, networks, international background etc. ‘World’ both because it is a world in itself, and because the computer interested are a global phenomenon. The phenomenon exists in the whole of the world and each single participant can reach an international arena. ‘Micro’ primarily because the computer interest and the activities are only a part of their life and existence.

At the center of this world we find a boy at a computer. Today there are PCs in many Swedish homes, at schools and at most places of work. In 1989 one out of three Swedish households with teenagers had a PC at its disposal (Croné, 1989). As already mentioned, Swedish youth interested in computers consider the picture of the young talented hacker breaking into other’s systems to be highly exaggerated. A quantitative inquiry shows that access to a modem is very limited among young Swedes with a computer (Nissen, 1993). This means that most of them cannot devote themselves to computer encroachment.

Important features of this world are also communication channels and meeting places. There are, for example, many magazines for people who are interested in computers. In Sweden it is not only Swedish magazines that are available but German and English ones too. It is not just magazines that spread across the borders. Like­minded people in different countries are tempted by the same games, and in this way they form an international community. The micro world also includes a series of different environments available for people who are interested in computers. The computer labs in the schools form, for example, a natural meeting place for many.

The computer technology in itself contains the seed of something completely new: Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and large networks of computers (for instance, the international Internet).[2] The Swedish BBS’s with youth as a target group are above all used by those who are interested in computers. This is probably a consequence of the lack of modems and because people without this special interest do not yet know about BBSes, let alone how to get in touch with a BBS. Hence, the BBSes are, so far, for people sharing an interest in computers and at the same time the BBSes provide them with a forum for discussing many other things.

I am not going to dwell here on these different features in the computer interested boy’s world, but instead look at its internal history more closely.

 

A hacker history

To understand the definition of the title hacker within the hacker culture itself, one has to follow the history of hacking. In the history of ‘hacking’ three themes stand out. First, the development of ethics which permeate all three themes, secondly a tendency toward social and political alternativism and lastly a trace of illegal activities.

Steven Levy (1985), who has made the most detailed survey of the history of hacking, presents the picture of three different generations of hackers. The first generation were students at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). In the late 1950s they began to take an interest in computer technology at the institute. They quickly established a new, irreverent relation to it. Up to this point the use of computers was a very closed operation. The users did not have direct access to the machines but the operator was there as an interface. By combining their devotion to computer technology with irreverence these students came to challenge the establis­hed ‘tradition’. They developed a completely different culture in which everybody was welcome and people were judged according to their accomplishment with the computer. This gave way to a new phase in the development of computer applications. The students improved technique, created new operating systems, developed computer graphics, word processing, computer games and the time‑sharing system.

It was in this environment that the ‘hacker ethic’ was formed. The content of the ethic was, in short, that computers are fun, access to them should be free, everyone should have the right and the opportunity to use or develop computer technology and programs; skills and not degrees or other criteria were decisive for a person’s position.[3] In accordance with the hacker ethic the students recommended decentralization, as they did not trust the authorities; they mistrusted authorities for trying to limit the use of computers. IBM, the company almost exclusively connected with computer technology, was the principal opponent. Resistance was established against superiority in different forms and the students argued for openness and decentralization. These inclinations against the superiority in different forms have survived, although with different contents.

The second generation of hackers emerged in the 1970s with Berkeley as the center. This generation was to contribute to the development of the first micro computers, i.e. what are often called home‑computers or personal computers. At this time the large computer companies had not developed the micro computer, despite having access to the technical knowhow.[4] The companies estimated that there was no market for personal computers. Instead they focused on large mainframe computers meant for large organisations. The hackers were left to develop the micro computer. During this period different groupings and meeting‑places arose. The Homebrew Computer Club is one of the more famous ones. Its significance is proven by the fact that some twenty new companies can be traced back to the club. One of these companies is the well‑known Apple (Levy, 1985). The company exemplifies a salient feature in hacker history: young virtuosos of computer technology with only a garage to work in, who created a product that would challenge the established computer industry, including IBM. However, Apple was not the only company to be developed.

An expansive prospering business with many small companies came into existence in a short time. They were characterized by an easy‑going attitude.

The whole industry was like a club, the easy‑going nature of which was visible in the images presented by these small companies: Loving Grace Cybernetics, Kentucky Fried Computers and Intergalactic Digital Research (before it became plain Digital Research). Their very names indicated the fun and humorous side of this community (Haddon, 1988:114).

The second generation developed some parts of the hacker ethic. The distrust of a big brother mentality was connected with the radical political and cultural climate in the 1970s. This generation was also influenced by ideas about a post‑industrial society and the awareness of the increasing importance of communication and information. The alternative view of society that arose can be summarised under three headings: politics of information, convivial technology and the demystifying of the computer. Experiments, regarded as political actions, were carried out; e.g. terminals were placed in public environments to give ordinary people access to computer technology (Athanasiou, 1985, see also Nelson, 1987). Leslie Haddon (1988:108) concludes:

 

In place of this system, these counterculture critics wanted both to gain access to the existing information which was held on computers and to establish an arrangement for creating and distributing new types of information which would be of use to the people. To achieve this, the counterculture critics wanted a decentralized, non‑bureaucratic form of computing.

 

It should be noted that these political ambitions were definitely a result of their own interest and their own positive experiences with computer technology which they wanted to supply to others and vice versa.

The third generation of hackers emerged during the early 1980s and is still of vital importance. Levy (1985) describes the emerging computer games companies as an environment for the third generation. However, this generation of hackers is above all made up of those owning a PC. As the personal computer spread to many homes and individuals, computer games turned into a large commercial business. Today most young people first meet a computer through games. Some of them, however, will do more than play games and some of them will turn into hackers.

Relatively simple computers can be used for communication with other computers through moderns and the telephone network. Bill Landreth (1985) has described how he and some friends, spread right across the USA, devoted themselves to breaking into computers.[5] They were driven mostly by curiosity and by the challenge to outwit the security system. Landreth and other young hackers created a moral code that can be seen as an elaboration of the ethic of the first generation. The focus was ‘look but do not touch’. According to them it was legitimate to break into systems as long as nothing was destroyed. They also informed people responsible for computer security about their experiences in order to help increase the reliability of security systems.

The West German association Chaos Computer Club formulated a political program, and did so more decisively than any other computer association. This was in the middle of the 1980s. They saw themselves as a kind of computer police with political as well as security ambitions. They wanted to point out the flaws in security and legislation and make people in general aware of the danger of a fully computerized society. They pointed to the risk of a gap between those who can afford to use computer systems and those who cannot (Andersson, 1986, see also: Ammann, 1989; Stoll, 1990; Wieckmann, 1988). One example of their activity consisted of members of the group transferring approximately $50 000 through a home banking system in order to prove the flaws of the system. The money was paid back in accordance with their code of morals. Obviously this group continued on the tradition of distrust of the authorities inherited from the first and second generation of hackers.

As computer games became more advanced something called ‘cracking’ developed (Eckert, 1991). Cracking is distinct from hacking. Cracking means breaking the copyright protection of computer games (and of other software) to make one’s own copies. According to internal hacker standards a game need not be cracked for sale purposes, but so that the hacker can boast that he has have succeeded. According to one boy’s view of cracking, it is acceptable to copy other software too, within certain limits:

 

It is simply incomprehensible, if you are going to /.../ just take those programs which I really use they would cost several tens of thousands of crowns and to find those programs which I really /.../ which I want, which I think are good ones I have to try many different programs and I /.../ with those it would be several hundreds of thousands of crowns. You just don’t have that much money so you don’t have much of a choice really. /…/ My attitude, which I think many /…/ purely ethically it is a little bit more okay to make a pirate copy of a program if you use them, if you have them for private use, use them for pleasure so to speak. But if you use, or if you have a company and use the program professionally and make money on it then you should buy it.

 

A new technique in a modern society

Why become a hacker? I shall suggest some answers to this questions. To begin with, a distinction can be made between internal and external inducements to establish and nourish an interest in computers. In society the individual is surrounded by a series of influential external factors. The strong symbolic value attached to computers is one example. According to the current debate computers are expected to have an important role in future society. This symbolic value will probably change and lose much of its power, but it can still be the driving force behind an awakening interest in computers for a young boy and it can certainly maintain this interest.

The internal driving forces behind computer fascination are difficult to describe and to analyze. The problem is complicated by the fact that not only must the computer be understood but so must some of the special features of the computer and their impact on the user. One recurring observation in interviews with hackers is their feeling of ‘mastery’ in controlling technology. ‘Mastery is of the essence everywhere within hacker culture’ writes Sherry Turkle  (1984:234, see also Shotton, 1989). A Swedish boy says: ‘It is a sort of technical problem, and then you don’t see anything around you, only this problem exists and it’s an enormous challenge to solve this and it’s a great kick to succeed, an ego‑trip’. Fredrik, seventeen years old, explains why it tempts him:

 

Now let’s see, how shall I explain it? /.../ No they /.../ Let me say that simply it is the art of exploring and of discovering something real big and comprehensive without really having to move very much. Without having to run around and ravage. You just sit in front of your screen and /.../ in front of you, you literally have the whole world, in the shape of networks and information, contacts, other people, everything.

 

The feeling of mastering the complex technology can be matched with a common tendency in the past decade to describe the world as chaotic and unwieldy. A young boy’s feelings of insecurity and powerlessness can be compensated by a feeling of control over something, in this case a specific technology. This compensation is reinforced by the great symbolic value of the computer. Computer technology is a tool for young boys to symbolically cultivate and master their existence. The fact that the adult world describes this tool as important while many adults themselves do not control it, presumably strengthens the youths’ position.

One of the main purposes of sitting in front of the computer is to be at work with the computer rather than to obtain a certain result. There are many programming projects that have never been finished. Some projects prove to be very difficult or impossible to carry out, others become too comprehensive; many of these boys fail to finish their projects but settle for the satisfaction of proving that an idea is feasible. The intense experiences reported by many youths can be compared with the culturally oriented effort in modernity that Thomas Ziehe (1986, 1989:154) describes as intensification. Usually rock music is associated with such experiences, but it is obvious that computer technology also offers opportunities for intensification. Intensification implies a striving for increased intensity (to intensify means to artificially load something with meaning) in order to offset emptiness, tiredness and weariness. It is an aesthetic activity; youth can be seen consciously choosing to represent reality as artificial. Instead of searching for the natural they choose to further artificialize it.

 

The more artificial I make the world and the more artificially I perceive it, the more it is a world created by me and to that extent ‘my’ world. The ugly, boring and brutal in this world shall increase aesthetically and sUlfully in order to make it cestatically or ironically available (Ziehe, 1989:159)

 

Punk and New Wave belong here. According to Ziehe the tendencies to aestheticize are spreading. It is no longer only successful yuppies who are style conscious (in dress, housing and consumer goods): most teenagers attach great importance to external appearances. Computer technology offers an additional route to artificiality:

 

To ‘the world’s artificiality’ can be added the phenomenon of ‘the world becoming mote and more a question of semiotics’. This expression denotes the upgrading of the world of signs that can be found among wail painters, graffiti philosophers and even with ‘computer freaks’. Even for them their world becomes ‘real’ as they in an ironic or naive sense make themselves into semiotic masters of a simulated reality (Ziehe, 1989:159).

 

Computer technology, and an interest in it, is a modern phenomenon in the sense that it is a new technique. What does this mean for young people interested in computers that they are not only young but that they also devote themselves to a modern technique? At the center of the micro world we find computer technology. The situation of young people who are interested in computers is characterized by several facts. Not only are they members of and part of the shaping of a common ‘world’: they also have an unusual relation to the surrounding world of adults. These young people master something regarded as central for the future and something in which many adults lack experience. This situation is decisive in many ways. In this special case we can, for instance, surely speak of a post figurative situation (Mead, 1970); the older generation learns from the younger instead of the other way around. In 1984 Kjell‑Åke Johansson described a result of this knowledge gap: ‘Hacking has a great advantage over many other activities: the parent generation has not penetrated it yet because of its protective similarity with studying’ (Johansson, 1984:34, my translation).

Parents and teachers are often still not able to understand if their child really is doing something very complicated or if he is fumbling around with purely elementary operations. The relation between the older and the younger generation is not only affected by different levels of knowledge. Today there is a growing interest in youth within many sectors. Ziehe (1989) claims that this interest can be explained by the fact that to adults young people represent the search for alternative forms of life. The hacker as the sovereign of the information society can serve as an example of this. The picture of the young man as the tamer of the computer systems also carries within itself a confidence in the technology. The message is: ‘We don’t have to worry, there, is a bright future ahead for all of us thanks to technology’. Moreover a single individual can actually be its master; technology is controllable! Note that technology in this context presumably stands for more than the machines themselves: sometimes it is apt to symbolize big systems, society’s apparatus – the seemingly unyielding development of society and its large technical systems. Ziehe adds that the interest in this symbolic value seems to be more important than the actual situation of the youth group in question. A situation that to a large degree seems valid for the computer interested, the spreading of rumours and the inclination to believe in ‘fantastic stories’, is considerably greater than the desire to critically examine what the young hackers actually do and what this activity can mean.

Teenagers prepare themselves in different ways for their future. Some of them are busy learning to understand computers, since they believe that knowledge and skill in this field will be important in the society of tomorrow. Besides this, the computer technology represents an area of knowledge where school failed to give these young students challenges in accordance with their expectations and needs. In this respect their activity can be interpreted as an informal education system. Many of these boys exceed their teachers in computer mastery and are known to have a reputation for this. Another common feature among these Swedish boys is the notion that school work is important and must not be neglected. ‘As long as it doesn’t interfere with school I think it’s okey. It’s like a feeling, once you have started, Le. sat down in front of a computer, it’s hard to stop before it’s finished’, says one boy. Still another important condition is that sorne of these boys find the opportunity to make money from their interest in computers. For another boy, working with computers has been important in many ways: ‘to [do] something useful, things that you feel are being used /.../ like real stuff that’s fun’, he says in order to describe the difference between this activity and the ones he devoted himself to earlier. His classmates have also observed that he is doing something ‘useful’: ‘Most people become a bit, yes, jealous, they work on the shop floor in the summers /.../ As some of my former class mates, some of them called me computer idiot and so on. Now when they hear that I work in the afternoons, they get thoughtful, maybe it isn’t so bad after all’.

The knowledge and skill possessed can, of course, also grant status among like­minded people. Bo, the system operator in the club, says: ‘I’m the one who fixes and potters about when something isn’t working, and connect new discs and so on, I the one who administer the systems, make sure it works. It takes a blasted time, but it’s great fun’.

Knowledge like Bo’s provides a possibility for genuine participation in the working life of society. This participation is significantly different from that offered by the school. Life inside school often takes on an ‘as W character. The boys’ superiority in computer knowledge over authorities like parents and teachers and the strong symbolic value of the technique reinforces their self‑esteem.

Ziehe (1989) discusses the importance of the labour‑market when he describes how young people today are exposed both to inclusion and exclusion. Inclusion, i.e. the dividing line between the generations vanishing, is illustrated by the young hackers who are often more skilled than many people in the older generation. Exclusion, i.e. the dividing line is maintained, because today it is almost normal for young people to have difficulties in gaining access to the labour market. Young people with knowledge of computer techniques differ in this respect from many of their peers, because there is sometimes a demand for them on the labour market.

The high valuation of computer technology in society leads to computer interest standing out as a perfect activity in the process of intensification. Not only do the boys experience strong intensity, but they also learn something in an area where knowledge is coveted. It is a form of double sanctions. Technology is transformed into an aesthetic activity. Here we should also consider what Ziehe calls the new conservative counteroffer against the culturally oriented efforts. In contradiction to intensification he sees a more, dynamic life planning. Emptiness, avoided by intensification, is fulfilled instead by competition, the desire to perform. and the joy of innovation (Ziehe, 1986:359). That which begins with intense emotional experiences can later be replaced in this way, not least when the interest is transferred to a profession.

 

A counterculture or…

The discrepancy between youths’ reality and the adult world’s view of their situation can in part be explained by the potential (or the potential we believe exists) in the control of computer technology. To grasp the discrepancy this potential will be analyzed using the concept of counterculture as put forward by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (MCS). They have developed a subculture perspective in their studies of youth (Hall and Jefferson, 1976). Researchers in this area have been interested in youth cultures within the working class, but they have also developed theories about youth cultures within the middle class. The latter they have called ‘countercultures’. A subculture according to them is part of a larger culture, but it is also a subordinate culture and often a suppressed culture. Subcultures are characterized by deviation from different dominant norms. In this perspective the theory of subculture is a theory about suppressed groups in society, e.g. youth, their strategies for ‘solving’ their societal vulnerability and their protests against it by clearly outspoken deviance.

Countercultures, on the other hand, which arise within the middle class, primarily mark a break within the dominant culture. Since the cause of the counterculture is the dominant culture, the former thereby represents ‘internal oppositions in the whole society, the crisis in the dominating class itself’ (Fornäs et al., 1984:40, my translation). With this the counterculture has been given a double function: partly to contribute to the adjustment of the dominant culture to new circumstances, and partly to unmask this culture and develop new alternatives (Fornäs et al., 1984). Subcultures are leisure cultures, while countercultures are more likely to be found in central institutions in society. In this perspective the hacker culture must be seen as a counterculture.

The first two generations of hackers contributed to the development of computer technology. They also helped bring about a changed attitude toward computers. All this was provided with political and ideological expressions in a known countercultural manner. In the second generation of hackers it is apparent that the technically aimed actions are combined with the radicalism of the time. The most tangible result is the development of the personal computer.

The contributions of the second generation of hackers can be interpreted in terms of the dominant culture treating the problems that computerization has caused. But is this a process of adjustment or the development of new alternatives? It is obvious that the second generation strove for new alternatives. In reality, however, there was a halt at adjustment. Bryan Pfaffenberger’s (1988) view is clear from the title of his article: ‘The social meaning of the personal computer: or, why the personal computer revolution was no revolution’. He claims that the second generation of hackers did not reach the alternative goals. He mentions decentralization as an example; micro computers indeed spread to many homes but they were mostly used for pleasure. At places of work the PC originally replaced terminals connected with central computers. Today the computer industry attaches great importance to internal networks, which again open the way for a centrally regulated use of computers. The countercultural feature of the second hacker generation seems above all to yield adjustment and not renewal.

Can the activities of the third generation of hackers be regarded in a similar way? The question can be directed toward their illegal misuse of computer information and copying and spreading of software. Do they bring about important changes in society, or do they mainly articulate a rhetoric to defend illegal actions of their own? From the theoretical perspective, it need not matter whether separate individuals really adopt a code of morals or only ‘hide’ behind it; the important thing is the effects of their actions on a cultural level. The mere existence of hackers makes, for instance, the holder of a computer file aware of the fact that the files are accessible. The existence of illegal misuse of computer information in itself, committed out of curiosity or for idealistic reasons, contributes to the fact that large computer systems cannot be built secretly. In this way the hackers contribute to the dominating culture by moderating the tension between the need for coordination through central organs and freedom from strong central control. The real effects can, however, be questioned. The virus affecting about 6.000 computers in the USA in 1988 did not involve damages or costs of any great size. On the other hand it meant an advance for companies in the business of computer security, as well as demands for more severe legislation against the illegal misuse of computer information and police interventions against hackers (Ross, 1991).

The hackers have actively acknowledged a technical development and at the same time formed a counterculture. Furthermore, they have contributed to the public upgrading of the significance of computer technology and to a confidence in technical solutions according to the formula: technology per se is never to blame, only the use and the users. They have contributed to the development of problems they said they were combating. This apparent contradiction is probably not unique to hackers. In fact similar discrepancies are also unravelled by theories on countercultures.

The micro world appears deeply rooted in social circumstances, rather than in dizzying electronic cyberspace. In my introduction, I emphasized the discrepancy between the lofty descriptions of the alleged possibilities in cyberspace and then the everyday lives of people who find themselves near to computer technology. It is still a long way between vision and reality.

 

All translations are by the author if not otherwise indicated.

 

Notes

 

References

AMMANN, THOMAS (1989) Hacker für Moskau Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag GmbH.

ANDERSSON, CHRISTOPH (1986) ‘Data‑sabotörerna’ Metallarbetarn 1986:10:20‑21.

ATHANASIOU, TOM (1985) ‘High‑tech altemativism: The case of the community memory project’ Radical science collective (eds) Making waves: The politics of communication London: Free Association Books.

CRONÉ, STEFAN (1989) ‘Datorer och hushåll’ Linköping University: Tema Technology and social change, Working Reports 67.

ECKERT, ROLAND (1991) Auf digitalen Pfaden Opladen: Westdt. Verl.

FORNÄS, JOHAN, ULF LINDBERG & OVE SERNHEDE (eds) Ungdomskulturer: Identitet och motstånd Stockholm: Symposion.

GIBSON, WILLIAM (1984) Neuromancer New York: Ace Books.

HADDON, LESLIE (1988) The roots and early history of British home computer market. Origins of the masculine micro (Diss.) London: University of London.

HALL, STUART & TONY JEFFERSON (eds) (1976) Resistance through rituals London: Hutchinson.

JOHANSSON, KJELL‑ÅKE (1984) ‘Ungdom och datorer? Tidsskrift för Nordisk förening för pedagogisk forskning 1984:2:28‑41.

LANDRETH, BILL (1985) Out of the inner circle. Bellevue Washington: Microsoft

LEVY, STEVEN (1985) Hackers: The heros of the computer revolution New York: Dell Publishing Co. Inc.

MEAD, MARGARET (1970) Culture and commitment. A study of the generaion gap London: The Bodley Head.

NELSON, THEODOR H (1987) Computer lib: ‘You can and must undertand computers NOW’ Washington: Tempus Books.

NISSEN, JORGEN (1993) Pojkama vid datorn: Unga entusiaster i datateknikens välrd Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No 89. Stockholm/Stehag: Symposion Graduale.

PFAFFENBERGER, BRYAN (1988) ‘The social meaning of the personal computer: or, why the personal computer revolution was no revolution’ Anthropological Quarterly 61(1): 39‑47.

ROSS, ANDREW (1991) ‘Hacking away at the counterculture in technoculture’ C. Penley & A. Ross (eds) Techoculture. Cultural politics. Vol 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

SHOTFON, MARGARET A (1989) Computer addiction: A study of computer dependency London: Taylor & Francis.

STOLL, CLIFFORD (1990) The cuckoo’s egg: Tracking a spy through a maze of computer espionage Yage London: The Bodley Head.

TURKLE, SHERRY (1984) The second self: Computers and the human spirit London: Granada.

WEIZENBAUM, JOSEPH (1976) Computer power and human reason: From judgement to calculations San Francisco: WII. Frceman.

WIECKMANN, JORGEN (ed.) (1988) Das Chaos Computer Buch: Hacking made in Germany Hamburg: Rowohlt GmbH.

ZIEHE, THOMAS (1986) ‘Inför avmystifteringen av världen: Ungdom och kulturell modernisering’ Mikael Lijfgren & Anders Molander (eds) Postmoderna tider? Stockholm: Norstedts: 344‑361.

ZIEHE, THOMAS (1989) Kulturanalyser Stockholm: Symposion.