March 21 st
Deviance and social space: homeless
o Why are the visible homeless deviant (in general)
o Our capitalist system and, thus, our culture, values a certain kind of citizen
Economically independent. We have very little time for economically
Consumption oriented. We often find people who don’t buy stuff weird
o Visible homeless symbolically violate these norms and values
o “lazy ass”, “get a job!” etc.
o judge character of people based on how they look. Some argue making assumptions like
this are in our nature. And homeless don’t have the resources, time to change your
looks, clean, admirable, well groomed. Contemporary and well respected citizen = well
o value being clean and well groomed
o stigmatize the dirty and disheveled
o informal social controls
o avoidance. Example: tim hortons, people are always distant from them. They
were brought up in this culture too, homeless are aware.
o E.g. Aware of the fact that he smells but it’s not like he wants to be judged or
Value being clean and well groomed
Stigmatize the dirty and disheveled
o Informal social controls
Homeless are aware…
Unable to meet cultural expectations
Use of space
Violate intended function
o Sleep in doorways, out of wind.
o Bathe in public foundation. o Urinate on street we find unacceptable but they have no choice
Violate public and private distinction
Negative reactions range from:
Violence (high victimization rate). Homeless kids are among the most victimized more
than anybody else. They are victimized by other homeless and public as well.
o Goffman’s “non-person’ treatment. People walk by without eye contact, seems
to be engaging like the person don’t exist, no smile, no talking
Homeless especially deviant in “gentrified” urban spaces
o Higher property values
o Populated by upper-middle and upper class because they can afford places.
Those with money buy neighbourhoods renovate etc. and since investment is
coming into their location then their taxes go up and rich makes it impossible for
those to live in their home
o Queen west street Toronto is an example
o Deviance often has a spatial dimension.
Norms, values and social space. Certain people because of who they are
violate those norms and values.
Dominant groups can navigate.
Some marginalized populations violate spatial norms just by being
Subject to informal and formal social control
Cyber deviance/ hacking and cyberbullying
Hackers definition: Individuals with an interest in technology who use their knowledge
to access computers and decides with or without authorization from the owner (holy
and kilger 2012)
Hacking is deviant, but not always malicious. The ownership of data, privacy etc. so it is
o Testing security of hardware and software. There are hackers who uses their
skills to do good, dedicate testing various forms of technology and figure out the
weak points and report that to the developers.
o The challenge is valued. They are curious to find out and challenge their skills
- Development and distribution of malware. They essentially create program that
can create Software that can destroy or corrupt files, steal sensitive date, deface
websites, render systems inoperable etc. they do exist and mutually aware of
one another and work in close proximity.
Early 1980s computer technology, bulletin board systems (bbs), etc.
- Dial up access and asynchronous BBS
- Explore the capabilities and limits of computers
Some started accessing and controlling government and private sector computers. They just
wanted to take data and show that they have, showing you are vulnerable etc.
- Most didn’t want to cause damage. It was the challenge and sense of power that
- Other sought to exploit expeci
Anxiety over youth and computer technology facilitated a “hacker” archetype:
1) Hackers known to be pathological addiction to computers, we constructed them to be
lonely and socially inept. (e.g. lonely in their parent’s basement in the computer)
2) Yet, they had an unbounded, “magical” power over computers because this technology
was new. Claims makers were all over this constructing it like a social problem
Late 1980s US business demanded legal action. Computer security industry emerged with
- Hackers constructed as a “criminal” threat
1990s emergence of the internet, e-commerce, and vast global networks
- Hacking community grew. Increasingly global according to circumstanced
- Criminal minority capitalized on proliferation of targets. Number of targets were
increasing because everyone started to be connected
Estimated cost of cybercrime to global economy in 2013: $300 billion to 1 trillion
Hackers as “criminal mastermind” remains the popular conception
Rely on self-report data (surveys, interviews etc)
- Good date re: non malicious hackers
- Limited date re: malicious/ criminal hackers
Hackers are overwhelmingly male and usually young (teens and twenties)
- Why is it mostly males? Pushed to this, Socialization of males re: technology.
They have active social lives (online and offline)
- Associate and exchange info with other hackers, go to places, rent places, hack
- Form local group then take it to national, international groups
Hackers: profile and structure Highly skilled (elite hackers, skill set is very fine, capable of innovation and computer
developing): capable of true innovation and development
semi-skilled: don’t innovate, develop as much usually apply to existing technologies
unskilled: very limited knowledge, a nuisance.
Primary reasons for hacking (holy and kilger 2012)
o Entertainment: hacking is fun, love causing trouble
Understanding and discovering limits of technology is FUN
Enjoy disrupting people’s “emotional equilibrium” i.e. taunting people.
They want to make you uncomfortable for a second and see what
Enjoy outing companies with bad security.
Like subcultural respect and recognition that hacking brings
But, ego must be balanced with secrecy which is why they use alias,
fulfills your ego. They want to be attached to the work they do, get
recognized but they can't so they end up doing it through alias
o Become a member of particular group
Good hackers invited to join hacking groups
Access to knowledge, talents, status, they want to be part of it and use It
for their own purposes.
Sensitive data can be sold internationally that will cause big bucks (login
and passwords, banking info, public and private sector intelligence etc.)
Hacking to express political, nationalistic, or religious beliefs (i.e.
‘hacktivism’) can be used to follow some type of social agenda
E.g. anonymous attacked MasterCard, visa, PayPal for not
supporting payments to Wikileads.
How many hackers are there? We really have no idea.
- The challenge of anonymity. One minute you are called bunny the next it is
called solo. Keeps changing their identity online.
- Depends on definitional criteria. For example:
Intent (malicious and non-malicious)?
Level of commitment? Do you want to get everyone in the survey or just
truly dedicated ones
Skill level? whether you want to keep it restricted to highly developed skills
that cause trouble or a 10-year old who is trying to hack into something Hackers: the subculture
Knowledge of subculture comes from:
o Interviews with hackers (all kinds)
o Observational research at conferences, meetings, events etc. hackers lurking around
technology on display, researchers asking them questions about what they are up to
and what they believe in etc. or attend their conferences and observe etc.
o Analyses of online forums and publications. You can learn a lot of what they do on a
daily basis or what they value by looking at their daily conversations
o Hackers have “loosely-knit” subculture. No clear signs of who belongs to the subculture
unlike the street gangs.
o Membership isn’t formally regulated. No one is monitoring who can join or not,
it is an online environment. No one can stop you from joining a conversation or
o They all rely on anonymity. Anonymity and technology facilitates transcience
o Yet, research shows some dominant norms/ values
Dominant norms and values of hacker subculture:
All consuming love of technology. Desire to explode it and apply it in new
Importance of being hands-on (learn by doing)
Belief that technology can solve our problems (technological u