intrusions on privacy (Marx, 1988a: 208-211;  Marx and Reichman,          1985).  This has contributed to a:               . . .  richly confused and hugely verbal age, energized               by a multitude of competing discourses,  the very pro-               liferation and plasticity of  which increasingly deter-               mine what we defensively refer  to as our reality (New-               man, 1985: 15).               By Postmodernism we mean a reaction against "cultural moder-          nity" and a destruction of the  constraints of the present "maxi-          mum security society" (Marx,  1988b)  that reflect an attempt to          gain control of an alternative future. In the CU world, this con-          stitutes a conscious resistance to the  domination of but not the          fact of technological encroachment into  all realms of our social          existence.  The CU represents a reaction against modernism by of-          fering an ironic response to the primacy of a master technocratic          language,  the incursion of computers into realms once considered          private, the politics of techno-society,  and the sanctity of es-          tablished civil and state authority.  Postmodernism is character-          ized not so much by a single  definition as by a number of inter-          related characteristics, including, but not limited to:             1.  Dissent for dissent's sake (Lyotard, 1988).             2.  The collapse of the  hierarchical distinction between mass                 and popular culture (Featherstone, 1988: 203).             3.  A stylistic promiscuity favoring  eclecticism and the mix-                 ing of codes (Featherstone, 1988: 203).             4.  Parody, pastiche, irony,  playfulness and the celebration                 of the surface "depthlessness"  of culture (Featherstone,                 1988: 203).                                         - 7 -               5.  The decline of the originality/genius of the artistic pro-                 ducer and the assumption that  art can only be repetitious                 (Featherstone 1988: 203).             6.  The stripping  away of social and  perceptual coordinates                 that let one "know where one is" (Latimer, 1984: 121).             7.  A search for new ways  to make the unpresentable presenta-                 ble, and break down the barriers that keep the profane out                 of everyday life (Denzin, 1988: 471).             8.  The introduction of new moves  into old games or inventing                 new games  that are evaluated pragmatically  rather than                 from some uniform stand point  of "truth" or philosophical                 discourse (Callinicos, 1985: 86).             9.  Emphasis on the  visual over the literary  (Lash,  1988:                 314).             10. Devaluation of formalism and  juxtaposition of signifiers                 taken from the banalities of  everyday life (Lash,  1988:                 314).             11. Contesting of rationalist and/or  didactive views of cul-                 ture (Lash, 1988: 314).             12. Asking not what a cultural text  means,  but what it does                 (Lash, 1988: 314).             13. Operation through the spectator's immersion, the relative-                 ly unmediated investment of his/her desire in the cultural                 object (Lash, 1988: 314).             14. Acknowledgement of the decenteredness  of modern life and                 "plays with the apparent emptiness  of modern life as well                                         - 8 -                   as the lack of coherence  in modern symbol systems" (Man-                 ning, 1989: 8).               "Post-Modernism" in its positive  form constitutes an intel-          lectual attack upon the atomized,   passive and indifferent mass          culture which,  through the saturation of electronic technology,          has reached its zenith in Post-War American (Newman,  1985:  5).          It is this style of playful rebellion, irreverent subversion, and          juxtaposition of fantasy with high-tech reality that impels us to          interpret the computer underground as a postmodernist culture.                                   Data and Method               Obtaining data from any  underground culture requires tact.          BBS operators protect  the privacy of users and  access to elite          boards, or at least to their relevant security levels,  virtually          always requires  completion of a preliminary  questionnaire,  a          screening process, and occasional voice verification.   Research-          ers generally do not themselves  violate laws or dominant norms,          so they depend on their  informants for potentially "dirty infor-          mation" (Thomas and Marquart, 1988).   Our own data are no excep-          tion and derive from several sources.               First,  the bulk  of our data come  from computer bulletin          board systems.   BBSs are personal computers (PCs) that have been          equipped with a  telephone modem and special  software that con-          nects users to other PCs by  telephone.   After "logging in" by          supplying a valid user name and  password,  the user can receive          and leave messages to other users of the system.   These messages          are rarely private and anyone calling the BBS can freely read and                                         - 9 -            respond to them.  There is usually the capacity to receive (down-          load) or send (upload) text files ("G-philes")  or software pro-          grams between the caller and host system.               We logged the message section of CU BBSs to compile documen-          tary evidence of  the issues deemed important  for discussion by          participants.   Logs are "captured" (recorded using the computer          buffer)  messages left on the board by users.   Calculating the          quantity of logged data is  difficult because of formatting vari-          ance,  but we estimate that our logs exceed 10,000 printed pages.          The logs  cited here are verbatim  with the exception  of minor          editing changes in format and extreme typographical errors.               Identifying underground BBSs can be  difficult,  and to the          uninitiated they may appear to be licit chat or shareware boards.          For callers with sufficient access,  however,  there exist back-          stage realms in  which "cracking" information is  exchanged and          private text or  software files made available.    With current          technology,  establishing a BBS  requires little initial skill.          Most boards  are short-lived and  serve only local  or regional          callers.   Because of the generally poor quality and amateur na-          ture of these systems, we focused on national elite boards.   We          considered a board "elite" if it met all of the following charac-          teristics: At least one quarter of the users were registered out-          side the state of the board  called;  the phone line were exclu-          sively for  BBS use and  available 24  hours a day;   and the          information and files/warez  were current "state of  the field."          Elite CU members argue that there are less than ten "truly elite"          p/hacker boards nationally.                                       - 10 -                 We obtained the  names and numbers of BBSs  from the first          boards we called, and used a snowball technique to supplement the          list.   We obtained additional numbers from CU periodicals, and,          as we became more familiar with the culture,  users also added to          the list.   Our aggregate data include no less than 300 Bulletin          board systems,  of which at least 50 attract phreaks and hackers,          and voice or on-line interviews with  no less than 45 sysops (op-          erators of BBS systems) and other active CU participants.               A second data source included  open-ended voice and on-line          interviews with hackers, phreaks and pirates.   The data include          no less than 25 face-to-face, 25 telephone, and 60 on-line inter-          views obtained as we became familiar with our informants.               Third,  data acquisition included  as much participation as          legally possible in CU activities[3].  This served to justify our          presence in the culture and  provided information about the mun-          dane activity of the CU.               Finally,  we obtained back and current issues of the primary          underground computerized magazines,  which are distributed on na-          tional BBSs as text files.  These contain information relevant to          the particular subculture,  and included PHRACK,  Activist Times          Incorporated (ATI), P/Hun, 2600 Magazine, PIRATE, TAP, and Legion          of Doom (LoD/H).   We also draw  data from national and interna-          tional electronic mail (e-mail) systems on which an active infor-          mation-sharing CU network has developed and spread.               Assessing the validity and reliability  of data obtained in          this manner creates special problems.   One is that of sampling.          The number of boards,  their often ephemeral existence,  and the                                       - 11 -            problem of obtaining access all make conventional sampling impos-          sible.   We focused on national boards and engaged in theoretical          sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 45-77).  We consider our sam-          ple representative, and accept Bordieu's observation that:               If, following the canon dictated by orthodox methodolo-               gy, you take a random sample, you mutilate the very ob-               ject you have set out to construct.  If, in a study of               the field of lawyers, for instance, you do not draw the               President of the Supreme Court,  or if,  in an inquiry               into the French intellectual field  of the 1950s,  you               leave out Jean-Paul Sartre,  or Princeton University in               a study of American academics, your field is destroyed,               insofar as these personas or  institutions alone mark a               crucial position--there are positions  in a field which               command the whole structure  (Bordieu,  interviewed in               Wacquant, 1989: 38).               We judge our  sample of participants adequate  for several          reasons.   First,  we presume that the members with whom we have          had contact comprise the elite members of the culture,  as deter-          mined by the nature of the  boards they were on,  references to          them on national  boards,  the level of  expertise displayed in          their messages, and their appearance in the "user lists" of elite          boards.   We consider the BBSs to be "typical exemplars" because          of their status in the culture, because of the level of sophisti-          cation both of users and of message content,  and because of ref-          erences to these boards as "elite" in CU periodicals.                              The Computer Underground               The computer underground is both a  life style and a social          network.   As a lifestyle, it provides identity and roles, an op-          erational ideology,  and guides daily routine.  As a social net-          work,  it functions as a  communications channel between persons          engaged in one of three basic activities:   Hacking,  phreaking,                                        - 12 -            and pirating[4].   Each subgroup possesses an explicit style that          includes an ethic and "code  of honor," cohesive norms,  career          paths,  and other characteristics that  typify a culture (Meyer,          1989a, 1989b; Meyer and Thomas, 1989).               Hebdige (1982:  113-117) used the concept of homology to de-          scribe the structural unity that  binds participants and provides          the "symbolic fit between the values  and life-styles of a group"          and how it expresses or reinforces its focal concerns.   Homology          refers to the affinity and similarities  members of a group share          that give it the particular cultural identity.   These shared al-          ternative values and actions connect CU members to each other and          their culture,  and create a celebration of "otherness" from the          broader culture.          Hackers                (Tune: "Put Another Nickel in")                Put another password in,                Bomb it out, and try again,                Try to get past logging in,                Were hacking, hacking, hacking.                Try his first wife's maiden name,                This is more than just a game,                It's real fun, but just the same                It's hacking, hacking, hacking.                Sys-call, let's try sys-call.                Remember, that great bug from Version 3,                Of R S X, It's here!  Whoopee!                Put another sys-call in,