That's the romantic view.

World improvement? While much of the hacker projects were financed by the military - especially the defense advanced research projects agency. The software from MIT found its way into missile guiding systems, battle management systems, logistics for the military and a lot more. Much of the show was paid for by the military. ARPA was renamed to DARPA to make sure the money receivers understand that 'defense' was not optional.

With Lisp for example, the Common Lisp standard was paid for the military to be able to have a common language for the military AI software. Most of the early manufactured Lisp Machines went directly into the SDI project, the rest then to the Strategic Computing project. TI got money to manufacture their own machines with an MIT license of the software. For example the 'compact Lisp Machine' got a new chip financed by the military - to be used in planes, guided missiles, etc.

I used to be worried to see if our generation could live to the challenge of these marvelous and generous engineers who not only hacked code together but made organizations like the EFF, legal hacks like the GPL. And I saw wikileaks, bitcoin, Telecomix, saw that people are looking deeper than the web's surface. It restored my trust, and humbled me into trying to sharpen my skills.

"Wow. in 1984 Levy distilled down those principles from the hacker ethic, and it clearly obvious to any of us in the industry that the ideas have spread."

It is obviously an advance if they're at least being discussed, but there's a long road until these ideals come true. And as the author said, we're beginning to inherit the responsibility.

A very admirable code of ethics. He's right - technology can be used to connect and change the world. How about more of us get to work on this? Less celebrity texting, more community building.

I understand the goals of the ethic, but I'd suggest a change to one part.

"World improvement" sounds noble, but every sane person believes they are making the world a better place -- whether dictators, telemarketers, soldiers, marketers of sugary beverages to children, or anyone. I guarantee not a single one of them, or anyone else, believes they are making the world a better place.

You might believe they are making the world worse, but then you're evaluating them by your standards. Since they have different standards, they'll view you as making the world worse too since you don't live up to their standards.

Personally I find the whole concept of making the world a better place or "world improvement" provincial and judgmental. Provincial because it assumes your standards apply to others (maybe self-important would be a more appropriate term). Judgmental because you are judging yourself and others -- "better" and "improvement" means more good, which judges.

Most insidiously, because the view makes you feel right, as opposed to humble, it motivates you to act instead of soliciting others' feedback. That is, it motivates you toward self-righteousness.

As an alternative, I would propose "do what you think is right" and "respect others". These two goals contradict each other and lead to internal conflict, but so does interacting with people.

Anyway, I blogged about this concept once at greater length than this post in case anyone wants to read more -- http://joshuaspodek.com/whats-wrong-making-world-place

BTW, "Hackers" is an excellent book and definitely a great read for hackers and non-hackers alike.

The internet, the web, all powered primarily by open source and/or free software and standards (tcp/ip, html, linux, apache, perl/php, firefox, webkit, etc.) have gone a long way toward furthering those hacker ethics rather considerably since 1984, I think.