Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the po'-white-folks-that-hack dept.
rcp writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term hacker versus cracker. " Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the terms incorrectly.
Hackers are kids who make government agents' lives miserable a la Hackers. Crackers are white boys who make Shaft's life miserable. Just talking 'bout Shaft...ya damn right....
Re:Hackers vs. Crackers!
by
sammy+baby
·
· Score: 2
Hush yo' mouth!
language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
Madness_
·
· Score: 2
I wish everyone would get over the hacker/cracker definition thing. Language changes, it is dynamic. That's one of the cool things about English is that it is very adaptable. Gay used to mean happy. Even if you could convince everyone you know of the difference, once the media has gotten ahold of something you're fighting a juggernaught. Besides, do the people who don't know the difference REALLY matter?
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
PhaseBurn
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. But my biggest "itch" about this whole this is tha tI'm a very proud hacker. I am paid to test systems, find security holes, and then plug them up before others expliot them. It's all written in my contract. Does that mean I'm a cracker?
HELL no. A "cracker" to me, means somebody who does exactly what I do, only where he/she/it is not wanted, authorised, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, LEAVES A TRAIL TO BE FOLLOWED AND DEFACES SOMETHING OR BREAKS SOMETHING.
If cracker = hacker then hell, I'm screwed because it means I just defaces every one of my company's servers every time they upgrade to the next release! Why would they keep me there? But no, my jobis prety clear. Find my way in, get access to something I shouldn't have access to (as a normal user), and then inform them, and patch the hole. Crackers certainly don't do that. Hackers certainly don't perform DDoS attacks on bloated, over-featured web-sites.... I'm just pissed that people are assuming I'm something I'm not, and that "crackers" are something THEY'RE not...
Personally, I think the movie "Hackers" had alot to do with it too... Maybe should have been called "Crackers"? </RANT>
-- -PhaseBurn
Welcome to Linux country. On quiet nights, you can hear windows reboot.
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
ZaMoose
·
· Score: 1
>Personally, I think the movie "Hackers" had alot >to do with it too... Maybe should have been >called "Crackers"? Appropriate, since they were (mainly) all "pretty white kids with problems" *grin* (Thanks, MadTV). Or maybe Deliverance should have been called Crackers...
-------------
-- I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
ZaMoose
·
· Score: 1
Whoops, should have looked like this: Personally, I think the movie "Hackers" had alot to do with it too... Maybe should have been called "Crackers"?
Appropriate, since they were (mainly) all "pretty white kids with problems" *grin* (Thanks, MadTV). Or maybe Deliverance should have been called Crackers...
-------------
-- I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
AdrianG
·
· Score: 2
The point needed to be made, so we can argue with it. 8-) I sent and email reply to the author which may help answer your objection. I've included it below.
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:22:55 -0500 From: L. Adrian Griffis <agriffis@dstsystems.com> To: shewchukb@toronto.cbc.ca Cc: adrian@nerds.org Subject: Good start on explaining misuse of the term "Hacker"
Blair,
I'm glad to see you respond to the criticism of the media's common use of the word "hacker". I couple of points come to mind.
You note that a few dictionaries agree with the common usage (i.e. a hacker is someone who breaks into systems). I'm sure that you, as someone who writes for a living, have flinched more than once at the kinds of word misuse that have been immortalized in all these dictionaries that you site. I fear, myself, that these dictionaries will begin to validate the common sports caster's use of the word "literally" to add emphasis rather than to differentiate literal and figurative uses of other words. In the event of such an appalling development, I vow to fight on in defense of the word "literally", and I can only hope that you would do the same. There is no word to replace "literally", and in the same sense, there is no word to replace "hacker".
The word "schizophrenic" is often misunderstood to mean someone who has Multiple Personality Disorder. It may even be that some dictionaries are legitimizing this misunderstanding. This usage is wrong, and even harmful. There are times when we NEED words to have exact meanings that are beyond what we can expect from the layman. When a complex profession develops a jargon to help it communicate concisely within the profession, we must give that jargon a kind of protected status, or we risk letting the confusion about words amoung laymen intrude into its proper, more technical usage. It doesn't matter that the number of people who think schizophrenic means MLP is much larger than the number of people who understand its meaning; The majority is wrong when it is applied to psychology, and the dictionary would be wrong to legitimize this incorrect usage. The fact that the average layman thinks the word hacker refers to someone who breaks into computers is equally wrong, regardless of the extent to which these confused people outnumber those of us in the computer business. The fact that someone of these confused people make dictionaries is unfortunate, but we in the computer business are entitied to our jargon, and those people on the outside are only making communications difficult by attempting to pollute our jargon with their misunderstanding.
A more subtle point, perhaps, comes from how this misuse came to be so common. The word "hacker" in the MIT sense came to be vested with a kind of prestige. As a result, a growing crowd of kids began to covet this term and simply usurped it, without actually gaining the skills required.
Before I go on, it is important to note that some full fledged hackers really are the kinds of people that break into systems without authorization. This is unfortunate, and is not something that many hackers like to talk about. We sometimes call them "Dark Side Hackers". But these hackers are, by far, outnumbered by a group of people that we call "Script Kiddies", who simply use canned tools that they couldn't have written themselves to break into systems. In many cases (but not all) it is dark side hackers that originally wrote the tools, but most security incidents are probably perpetrated by script kiddies.
Anyway, back to the second point. At first, and to some extent even today, many journalists lack the technical sophistication required to tell the different between people that really qualify as hackers and people who claim, falsely, to be hackers. Those of us who understand the term simply see journalists as gullible.
But suppose we decided we've fought this battle long enough. Suppose we surrendered this term to the layman. Would this really improve communications? Would we have a way to talk to you journalists to help you understand the difference between the person who understands the system well enough to create a really impressive utility and the person who simply uses the utility in some pathetic act of vandalism? If I can't convince you that I have some authoritative right to correct your use of the word, can I at least convince you that surrendering this distinction will make clear communications more difficult.
Further, suppose we surrender this word and pick another one. How long will it be before the script kiddies covet this new word, as well. How long will it be before they claim this new word as their own. And how long will it be before all these dictionaries begin to parrot their claims. If we decide on this new word, can we count on you jounalists to do a better job of examining these false claims than you did with the word hacker? From the first misuse of the word hacker, we've challenged it, and you journalists have ignored us. Now that we finally shout loudly enough that we are not so easy to ignore, you journalists have made excuses.
Suppose we surrender this word. Are you promising to take better care of the next one? Shall we count on jounalistic integrity to safeguard this next word where it did nothing to protect the first? If you won't admit that you are wrong now that the dictionary backs you up, will you at least admit that you would have wrong before the dictionaries validated this misuse of the word hacker? Are you honestly working towards better communications and a better understanding or is it just tough, sometimes, to admit that you are wrong.
Regardless of what words we use, it is important to understand that there are two different groups here and we needs ways to talk about them without getting confused. There are people who love working with the intricate details of computer programming. We call them "hackers". There are people who use tools that they are not bright enough to develop themselves to commit pathetic acts of vandalism. We call them "script kiddies", but you want to call them hackers. Do you plan to confuse your public about the difference between these two groups? Is there some other word that you would like us to use to describe the first group? Have you really thought this through?
This message is public domain. You may reprint it without any other kind of permission, but I hope you will let me know, and I hope your journalistic integrity will guide you in quoting sections of it. I will be posting it to SlashDot.org.
Thanks for getting the discussion going.
L. Adrian Griffis adrian@nerds.org
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure that you, as someone who writes for a living, have flinched more than once at the kinds of word misuse that have been immortalized in all these dictionaries that you site.
The point is that ultimately that there is no such thing as misuse, there is only use. The particular use at any given time might indicate to the reader what kind of person the writer is. eg "cracker" indicates the user is a geek.
Language is democratic, what appears as misuse today, will, if enough people misuse it, eventually become accepted use. eg writing 'site' when really you mean 'cite'
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
gwalla
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. But my biggest "itch" about this whole this is tha tI'm a very proud hacker. I am paid to test systems, find security holes, and then plug them up before others expliot them. It's all written in my contract. Does that mean I'm a cracker?
HELL no. A "cracker" to me, means somebody who does exactly what I do, only where he/she/it is not wanted, authorised, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, LEAVES A TRAIL TO BE FOLLOWED AND DEFACES SOMETHING OR BREAKS SOMETHING.
I thought this was what the terms "white hat" and "black hat" were coined for, at least in computer jargon. As I understand it, they were originally coined in the movie industry to refer to the hero and villain (thank you, Jonny Quest comics!)
Personally, I think the movie "Hackers" had alot to do with it too... Maybe should have been called "Crackers"?
Computer criminals have been commonly referred to as "hackers" by laymen for much longer than that. I remember waaaaaay back in 1st grade (I'm 20 now, a junior in college), we had to do a project where we made acronyms of out names from words that we felt described us. For the "H" in my first name, I used the word "hacker". My teacher got mad and had me change it, because she thought it implied criminal activity, when in actuality it just meant I liked to play around with BASIC and Logo on my Apple IIc.
I think we're stuck with "hacker" meaning criminal in general use. But we can still make the distinction in jargon. Just remember who you're talking to, or remember to make the distinction clear.
And yes, the movie should have been called "Crackers", but to most Americans that would have meant "white trash".
OT--found a nifty word in an online legal dictionary: Usufruct. It's the right to the products of property rather than the property itself, like a farmer allowing someone else to farm the land and profit from what they grow, but retaining rights to the land itself. This might come in handy during the next discussion about GPL & Open Source.
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
Rysc
·
· Score: 1
The people who don't know the difference can arrest me. Ignoring them will only make things more difficult later on.
-- I want my Cowboyneal
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
Clayworth
·
· Score: 1
You have two choices. Either you have to "just deface every one of my company's servers every time they upgrade to the next release!", or call yourself something apart from "hacker". How about "Computer Security Consultant"?
Re:language changes, it's dynamic. Get over it.
by
PhaseBurn
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so now I'm a "Computer Security Consultant" at work... What do I call myself at home, when I get into other company's systems to see if I can't find certain info I'm looking for just cuz I'm curious? I don't work for them, and don't even know who they are. But you'll never catch me defacing anything unless it's mine, a good friend's (as a joke), or is owned by the company I work for (so as to possibly prove my point). So, what definition does that go by? Don't even try to tell me I'm a "non-payed, underground computer security consultant";-)
-- -PhaseBurn
Welcome to Linux country. On quiet nights, you can hear windows reboot.
In order to CRACK a machine, one must HACK at it first. And if you're hacking at a machine for several hours, you can still get busted with an attempt to break in. In this case, you haven't CRACKED anything but you got caught HACKING.
I think the terminology is loose enough, and as long as us geeks understand the true meaning between hacking and cracking, we could just let it slide.
unless you're just a 5K1P7 K11D13... after all, there's no hacking involved in a metacrawler search for known exploits, and then running them. Easier than freecell...
as for the definition of the word, people who don't know that MS doesn't make Pentiums and Netscape aren't going to listen/understand anyway. Kind of a lost cause.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Strange... I usually hack at machines all day long without doing anything illegal, maybe you could clarify in what way I can be busted for doing my job? Or maybe you should just quietly go away and come back when you know what hacking is.
FOLDOC on "hack", entry no. 4: 4. To work on something (typically a program). In an immediate sense: "What are you doing?" "I'm hacking TECO." In a general (time-extended) sense: "What do you do around here?" "I hack TECO." More generally, "I hack "foo"" is roughly equivalent to ""foo" is my major interest (or project)". "I hack solid-state physics."
And by the way, so you won't lose any sleep on it, none of the other definitions mention doing any cracking.
you have it more backward than not: if you want to draw the distinction you're drawing, then cracking is the password circumvention phase, while hacking is the defacement you engage in once you break in... all other meanins notwithstanding.
The CBC actually covers tech issues quite accuratly and often reflects on the views of slashdot readers (not by name, but ideas presented here are often discussed on CBC news.)
Cracker = someone who removes copy protection from games..
Hacker = someone who enters other peoples computers via a modem (not necessarily damaging the system, but doing it in an un-authorised manner...)
only occasionally is a hacker someone who `really likes coding`...
and these definitions seem to be pretty prevalent outside the scene too... though i dont claim that there are no uk based dissenters from these definitions (i`d be interested to hear either way, actually).
This debate has been going on for at least 10 years - in one debate (on FidoNet IIRC), someone suggested using the terms "stoats" and "weasels" instead. Unfortunately I could never remember which was supposed to be which.
As to 'within the scene' and 'outside the scene' what scene are you talking about. Certainly I have not met any programmer-type-hacker who has been happy with the media's use of the word hacker, and most of the people I have spoken to consider both of your examples to be 'crackers'.
You can stop there. The problem is that "the scene" consists of crackers. Crackers have always called themselves hackers anyway, much to the annoyance of true hackers. FWIW, I've encountered "hacker" in the sense "really likes coding" quite a lot in the UK, though more so in recent years. Perhaps that's due to the influence of a global Internet -- cultural differences are bound to cross borders, particularly between coutries that (nominally, at least:-) speak the same language.
-- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
specifically the Amiga demo/cracked game scene of the late `80s and early-mid 90`s...
I *never* heard of `cracker` being used to describe the type of person i described previously as a `hacker`... never ever ever! Though i probably heard someone call a cracker a hacker (again, my previous definitions)... like you`d `hack` through the code to `crack` the program.
I put `scene` there to differentiate between those `in the know` and...uh..`users` and people who arent interested in all this. I`m not sure i`ve ever heard any of them refer to `cracking` - its hacking all the way...
I'll second you on that. Maybe this is just a U.S. thing. In the UK I only ever heard 'cracker' in reference to game protection removers. When I started to read/. I couldn't understand all the fuss. To me, 'hacker' is someone who {attempts to} gain unauthorised access to networked computer resources. As for someone who is just into computers & writing code, I would just call them a 'computer geek' or something. But probably not, cos that's kind of perjorative. What's wrong with white/black hat, anyway?
I agree. I have been into modemming since 1980 or so and these are ALWAYS the terms I have used. I have *never* heard the word "cracker" used in reference to a hacker until Slashdot came around.
Cracker = someone who removes copy protection from games..
Hacker = someone who enters other peoples computers via a modem (not necessarily damaging the system, but doing it in an un-authorised manner...)
only occasionally is a hacker someone who `really likes coding`...
I'm actually from the US, and it was more or less the same for me back in the 80's. "Cracker" always meant somebody who disabled copy protection code. Even on the old Apple II's, bootleg games would proudly display "cracked by..." with the cracker's handle on the title screen.
"Hacker" typically meant a code guru who could program for the "big iron" mainframes, *NIX servers, etc. who got their knowledge through (ahem) informal means. That oftem meant "trashing" (raiding dumpters for manuals & stuff), "preaking" (exploiting stolen phone time so you were harder to trace), and "hacking" around in systems that did not belong to you.
Hackers are responsible for a lot of the success of the computer revolution of today. For example, a Jobs & Woz once perloined a 3-ring binder from Bell that got them started as phone phreaks. They went on to do quite well.
If you go back far enough, the term "hack" was once generally applied as a negative term pointing out sloppy work. This could well be the origin on the programming cuture's use of the word; appropriated for situations when one would hack a quick-fix to an application with a few lines of code. Like "geek", a derisive term was adopted and turned into a cheerful self-reference. Personally, I think both uses are fine.
I'm sure that people will continue to call people like Bernie S. and Kevin Mitnick "hackers", as painful as that may be for some/. regulars to swallow.
Well, I guess that explains the OED's failure to register the hacker/cracker dichotomy the way we would like. They are after all based in England. What is Merriam-Webster's excuse?
-- Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
All I can re-iterate is that back in the old BBS days (1987 or so onwards), most of the good programmers I knew considered themselves hackers. Until the media started using it to refer to computer crime, that WAS the meaning of the word hacker in the UK. The word cracker WASN'T used for anyone. The word phreak was used to describe those who abused the phone system, but no-one within the programming community had yet coined a phrase for people who insisted on trying to break into computers.
in one debate (on FidoNet IIRC), someone suggested using the terms "stoats" and "weasels" instead. Unfortunately I could never remember which was supposed to be which.
Presumably, one kind was weaselly recognised, while the other was stoatally different?
"I have not met any programmer-type-hacker who has been happy with the media's use of the word hacker" You have now. I've always used 'hacker" to mean someone who breaks into computer systems. I intend to continue doing so, if only because occasionally I have to talk to non-geeks. "A word always means what I want it to mean" may be great for Humpty Dumpty, but it doesn't help get your meaning across.
Seems actually the site 'How to become a hacker FAQ' is all about hacking as opposed to 'cracking'.
From the site...
Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word `hacker' to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
If you want to be a hacker, keep reading. If you want to be a cracker, go read the alt.2600 newsgroup and get ready to do five to ten in the slammer after finding out you aren't as smart as you think you are. And that's all I'm going to say about crackers.
Can someone please explain to me why it matters so much if the mainstream press gets such an insignificant term wrong? There are far more atrocities of error everyday in the common press for far many more things (even computer tech). Worrying about a term that so few people care about is exactly whats wrong with most of the proponets of open-source/linux/today's computer flavour... the problem is mis-directed energy. I really miss the days when your choice of operating system was more on its merits than on a "sport's team" mentality; at least when people bickered then, if they lost the fight they would go back and try to improve their OS to match the other one. These days its nothing but rhetoric from every side of the fence. Blah.
The reason it matters is simple. If I were to refer to myself as a hacker, meaning an enthusiastic programmer, what response am I likely to get? Usually, people will look at me as if I'm a kind of criminal. Try it sometime. When a potential employer asks about your computer skill level, tell them you're a hacker.
-- I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Personally, I don't care what the public thinks that hacker means, because I don't refer to myself as one, but I can see whyt those that do might be upset about it.
I suspect that the hackers are kinda miffed because it means that, in the popular imagination at least, they're lumped together with the script kiddies and virus writers of this world.
When someone says that they're a hacker, they mean something akin to "dedicated programmer", and have a right to be miffed when someone else thinks they mean "common vandal".
Would you like it if people thought of you as a criminal, just because of a misused term?
If I decided in my head that the word "Thief" means "considerate, conscientious person tryin' to get a break in life", and called myself a thief in conversation, I oughtn't be surprised if people got the wrong impression. Communication requires that one is responsible for making at least a rudimentary attempt at using words as they are commonly understood.
There's a difference in lingo and language. Language is defined by the mainstream. If a majority of the people use a word in a certain sense, then that's what the word means. If you don't use it the same way, you're either using the word wrong or you're speaking a specific lingo.
I've been in the Navy for 15 years. If I ask another sailor the location of the nearest head, he'll direct me to the restroom without any problem. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant where the head is, I'll likely get some really strange looks. It isn't the waiters fault, however, it's mine.Head does not mean restroom in the English language, only in naval lingo.
In geek-speak, hacker means one thing. To the rest of the world, it means something else. If you use geek-speak to a non-geek and are misunderstood, the fault is yours, not theirs.
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
What bothers me is that the *only* term for "enthusiastic programmer" has been deleted from the language. There is *no* other word to refer to what we do. Or at least I can't think of one.
I think what bothers people here is the rather Orwellian aspect of having themselves deleted from public thought by removing the word used to name them.
My only objection in terms is they may be mis/applied to me. If/.s say we are hackers, we know what we mean. But, if the FBI were to call us "hackers", meaning enthusiast, and misunderstood as "crackers", or malicious folk out to dammage, I'd say it matters a world of difference. Someone has recently called me a hacker, and was "going to be nice" and not press charges as long as I mind my own business-not using their equipment to do my business. The term hacker was misused because it was an invocation of fear, the inability to control me and what I did(I asked the true expert if I did what I'm accused of, he said no, to a shade of gray tho, and their solution was to social engineer me, not provide a technical solution. Voila!, I'm a hacker.) In a day and age where the slightest misconception can wind you up dead, fired, sued, or any number of things, YOU BET it matters!
-- This mind intentionally left blank. The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Yes, but to both groups "head" is a pretty neutral word. Using it one way in the wrong group will only result in confusion and embarrasment, at worst. Using "hacker" the right way in the wrong group could result in serious, and seriously bad, events. Like... arrest, general distrust, loss of a job, etc. Or, in the other group, it could result in scorn.
I admit that the hacker vs. cracker debate has been a mild amusement to me for many years (most notably after picking up a copy of the New Hacker's Dictionary in my local library back when I was in high school, but I digress). I've often wondered why news organizations insist after what I assume to be constant derision to use the same incorrect (at least in my opinion) definition of a malicious computer user.
While it is refreshing to see someone actually explain to us why they use the term, it is disheartening to see that at least the CBC will continue to use "hacker" to refer to script kiddies, inept programmers and other low-life scum. At the very least, it is food for thought and affords us all an opportunity to now make more educated arguments in the hacker vs. cracker debate. Now that we know why the news organizations choose to use the words they do, we can make more informed complaint letters to them as well as dictionary authors.
Agreed. The article looked hard into why hackers get upset by the misuse of "their" words, and then clearly explained why the CBC was going to carry on doing it.
They may not agree with those who would use hacker in its entirely white hat sense, but they definitely understand what the fuss is about.
Just the other day I was watching a report on the I love you *feature* (hehe) and I noticed that the Slashdot homepage was diplayed on the computer monitor behind the journalist. Go CBC!;-)
You can kind of understand how the media ends up using the word HACKED since there are MANY pages out there (see: attrition.org cracked pages archive), that specifically say "YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED BY" or just the ever rampant "hacked".gif (my apologies Unisys) staring you in the face when you look at it.
On an old school note, maybe its me, but I remember the commodore 64 days, when *games* were what was "cracked". (The infamous "cracked by eaglesoft, crack by the ball brothers," etc etc). Which at that time, it was the removal of copy protection. Maybe I'm just showing my age.
You can kind of understand how the media ends up using the word HACKED since there are MANY pages out there (see: attrition.org cracked pages archive), that specifically say "YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED BY" or just the ever rampant "hacked".gif (my apologies Unisys) staring you in the face when you look at it.
Actually, I think the vogue is now, "you have been owned by...", followed by some 1337-speak. I agree that a "cracker" is someone who breaks through a barrier, like copy protection or security, and DoS attacks are a little different, so maybe we should call such "crackers" "owners" instead.:)
--
BH Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
fluid dictionary definitions
by
Staciebeth
·
· Score: 2
Dictionaries, although invaluable references, are always a little behind the way people really speak. Just as grammer can be viewed as prescriptive (telling, or prescribing what the correct way to speak is -- probably what you remember from school) or descriptive (describing how people ACTUALLY speak) so do dictionaries end up being a little prescriptive (what words ought to mean, what they USED to mean, what they historically meant) and a little descriptive (how people actually use words.)
English can be a little vague. What does love mean? I say I love strawberries (yum!) and my cat (frankly, I doubt so yummy -- all that fur) and although I use the SAME word we all know I mean differnt things. This is hardly an ideal situation.
A sensible paper, one might hope, would choose the more precise word (cracker when they mean "malicious slob who breaks into computer systems and causes damage" and hacker when they mean "talented computer enthusiast".
Just because the dictionarys haven't caught up with the vernacular is no reason to hold up the dictionaries as the "holy grail" of word knowledge.
Re:fluid dictionary definitions
by
d-e-w
·
· Score: 1
A sensible paper, one might hope, would choose the more precise word (cracker when they mean "malicious slob who breaks into computer systems and causes damage" and hacker when they mean "talented computer enthusiast".
Well, I'm an editor on a security journal, and for the past year (since I got here) I've been trying to call crackers crackers.
But it's difficult. It's not a concern for the other two editors on staff, and due to the fact that we put out several publications and that I don't know which one I'll be working on during any given cycle, I might not see all of them. Last time around, I spent most of my time working on another newsletter, so "hacker" snuck through in an article on the DDoS attacks.
It's the writers and the editors that have to be convinced. Maybe in my attempts to use the "right" word when I catch the "wrong" word, I'll allow our readership to see the term cracker instead of hacker and get them to start considering the difference. Maybe, at some point, our writers will then start thinking about the difference. But it's going to take a long time to advance through those steps.
The word gay actually is what got me into semantics when I was in high school. I grew up with it being slang for stupid, as in "that movie was gay". I knew it as that even before I knew/understood the idea of homosexuality. As far as I saw it, the history went a little like this:
The word means happy
Homosexuals, in struggling for acceptance take a retalitory stance and adopt the term gay, implying that their lifestyle is happy, whereas being straight is not
The generally homophobic youth culture changes the meaning to stupid, implying that homosexuals who choose to call themselves that are stupid.
Really interesting to see the way words change. Duh is now in the dictionary. But as far as this debate, it's just one culture (programmers) trying to distance themselves from another (script kiddies) while still maintaining a bit of counter-culture status.
--
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
3. Kidz copy older and cooler kids. Not all who used it knew the word "gay" meant homosexual, but all knew that it was being used pejoratively. Eventually, the mass market more ignorant usage won out.
Interestingly, this offers a deeper parallel to the hacker/cracker debate.
hackers: programmers or particularly genius system administrators (context dependent)
hackers: someone looking to learn as much as possible about a given piece of software or hardware, regardless of legality
skript kiddies: ones who run scripts, almost always claim to be one or both of the aforementioned "hackers".
crackers: thin crusty wafers not dissimilar to bread, but dryer.
Nothing beats oyster crackers!
by
Xannor
·
· Score: 1
It really bothered me when the DoS attacks were happening they were blaming it on Hackers. At least this proves that some reporters in the news media actually do research before spouting a story. But, the delay in this report shows that the truth only comes on slow news weeks.
I still think that they use the definitions wrong, hackers i agree with, but crackers should be left to burlgers to crack safes. Leave crackers a sa term for the 40's, the data safes of the 90's were best broken by hackers. Plus it ties nicely into the cliche for a hacker.
A pale, underexercised computer nerd who, when not writing code spends his time playing AD&D, hacking both at imaginary creatures and real computers.
Too bad most cliches and stereotypes are no longer valid. just about anybody today is a hacker to some extent, weather directly or indirectly. if you disagree, think abount it the next time you play an MP3, watch a movie with DeCSS, or run that nifty program you got for "Free." (Don't deny it, almost everybody who owns a computer has pirated some peice of software from a relative.)
From the article: "Perhaps [coining the term] cracker was not so much an attempt to educate the media, then, as a desire to rewrite the dictionary."
Yup, seems like a pretty safe bet.:)
But seriously. Of course we want to rewrite the dictionary -- how would the journalists like it if we kept calling them "lusers?" Thing is, they'd have an authority to fall back on: hey look, guys, we and our peers have another name for ourselves! We're not lusers!
We hackers just want the same, is all. Too much to ask?
Look, if you're going to get frosted over people who (to you) misuse the word "hacker", why on Earth would you turn right around and start misappropriating the word "cracker?" Cracker, as it relates to computers, never had the meaning that the annoyed hackers are trying to foist on it.
It's a little past time to realize that words change over time, and that the war on this word is lost, so I definitely don't have much energy for this sqabble. But please, if you're going to carry on with it, at least show a little consistency.
Look, if you're going to get frosted over people who (to you) misuse the word "hacker", why on Earth would you turn right around and start misappropriating the word "cracker?" Cracker, as it relates to computers, never had the meaning that the annoyed hackers are trying to foist on it.
A Cracker, as it relates to computers, is someone who maliciously breaks security systems. Now these security systems could be within programs (copy protection), computers themselves (firewalls or gaining root), etc. I fail to see where this meaning was never used before? Even the small programs which these people make to break copy protection are called "cracks". Why should it be a different word when they're doing the same thing?
-- iCEBaLM
While 'cracker' may not gain general public usage
by
Count+Spatula
·
· Score: 1
...I'll keep doing my part to see that people use the correct terminology. For instance, when my parents asked me about the recent wave of hacker attacks, I quickly pointed out the difference between hacker and cracker. And so forth. Maybe I won't make a big impact, but *some* people will be able to acknowledge the difference.
That, and they won't get confused when I say that I'm trying to find a quick bologna/cheese/bacon sandwich hack....
-- --
Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire
"...because my cooking sucks."
I don't think so. I've lived in Georgia all my life, and the only places I've ever heard 'cracker' refering to white person is when I happen to catch some random rap music. I have never heard anyone say it in reality. But, then again, I mainly live in North Georgia, which is hicksville, redneckville is South Georgia.
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
GET OVER IT!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5
I know all you guys think its really cool to call yourselvers "hackers" and pretend that you are some sort of antisocial wizards.
I know you are all wrapped up in the misunderstood genius syndrome.
I know you all think the world would be better off if it would just blindly accept your intellectual superiority and form a huge technocracy.
Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
"Hacker" is what 90% of the world uses to refer to a someone who gains improper access to a computer. Let it go. Get on with your lives.
Seriously. Right now -- close your web browser, get up, go outside, and go for a walk. If you are in Minnesota, take an umbrella.
"I know all ya' dudes dink its real waaay coo' t'call yo'selvers "hackers" and pretend dat ya' is some radical antisocial wizards.
I know ya' is all wrapped down in de misunderstood genius syndrome.
I know ya' all dink de wo'ld would be betta' off if it would plum blindly accept yo' intellectual supuh'io'ity and fo'm some huge technocracy.
Slap mah fro! Unfo'tunately, de rest uh de alleyetic, stupid wo'ld still clin's t'de silly noshun dat dere be mo'e in life dan overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
"Hacker" be whut 90% uh de wo'ld uses t'refa' to some some sucka who gains impropuh' access t'a clunker.
Let it go. 'S coo', bro. Get on wid yo' lives. Seriously. Slap mah fro! Right now -- close yo' web browser, dig down, go outside, and go fo' some walk. Ya' know? If ya' is in Minnesota, snatch an umbrella."
Is that suppoosed to be funny? Most people will find it really f*cking offensive and in very poor taste.
go smoke some more pot, PC-boy. that was "suppoosed" to be the Jive Generator, an august and venerable standby of geek humor. i suppose someone who still thinks the late '60s in America were the epitome of "cool" might find it offensive, though...
-steve
-- ---
"We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
the Jive Generator parodies the speech style of a certain subculture that existed in urban America several decades ago. (i might point out to you that the members of this subculture did NOT all belong to the same ethnic group.) are you asserting that American hipsters constitute a "race"?
-steve
p.s. for someone who swears a lot, you do it in a remarkably wimpy fashion. would it kill you to type "fuck" and get it over with? Slap mah fro!
Slap mah fro!
-- ---
"We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
it was the Dialectizer(http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/), I though it was funny, although if I had used redneck or Swedish chef someone else would have been screaming PC, I posted that knowing that SOMEONE would take offence but also knowing that you cannot please EVERYONE
form the Dialectizer Not Discriminatory Statement
" The Dialectizer is not intended to be racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning or discriminatory toward any ethnic, religious, or cultural group, or any other minority (or even majority). Nowhere on this site will you find any advocation of discrimination against any group of people, which is what racism is. Although the vast, vast majority of the email I've received about The Dialectizer, most notably from those who consider themselves among those one of The Dialectizer's dialects tries to emulate, has been highly complimentary, there are a scant few who are concerned that The Dialectizer may be racist in nature and have accused me of such. It isn't. No where are racial issues even mentioned. And while cultural differences are acknowledged, no where is there the expression or implication that one cultural group is inherently inferior than another cultural group; nor do I advocate anywhere, explicitly or implicitly, that one cultural group should be discriminated against. The simple fact is that I have a strong aversion to such discrimination and despise true racism as much or more than those complaining that The Dialectizer might be. Discrimination against whole racial or cultural groups is a terrible abomination. However, the acknowledgement of cultural differences is not inherently an expression of discrimination -- nor should it be. In fact, calling it that only increases tensions between ethnic groups, as it makes people paranoid even to talk about these issues that so desperately need to be talked about. Acknowledgement of cultural differences is not bad. Discrimination based on cultural differences is. The Dialectizer acknowledges cultural differences but does not discriminate. The Dialectizer attempts to find humor in cultural differences, but this humor is absolutely not intended to be demeaning in any way. It does not make fun of cultural dialects; rather, it mines humor that may be found when certain English passages are expressed in a dialect we are not used to hearing such English passages expressed in. By no means is The Dialectizer intended to ridicule or demean. It is my hope that, by deriving non-discriminatory and non-demeaning humor from cultural differences, we will be able to relax and ease the tensions that make good race relations so difficult to achieve otherwise. Let's face it. The only way we will ever conquer racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination is not by suppressing those differences but by cherishing them, bringing them out into the open in such a comfortable and non-threatening way that we ourselves become at ease enough with them so that we need not be ashamed of them -- so that we can talk about race relations in a way that isn't grave or guarded or fearful of dire consequence -- so that we may treat racial differences for what they are: extant but, when making any sort of judgment of character, insignificant. "
I made a point of stating "most people" and not "I" for the simple reason that I may just not get the joke. And obviously, I didn't.
But I would like to point out two things:
First, intentionally or not this issue directly relates to the parent article. Most people hear "hacker" & think "evil computer vandal". Similarly, most people read "slap mah fro" and think "rascist joke". Like it or not, how the majority views something tends to become accepted as fact, even if that view is (yes, like mine. I admit it) mistaken.
Second, stating that it's ok because it's not intending to be racist reminds me a lot of the current arguments over the Confederate flag. And I consider those arguments in favor of keeping it to be seriously lacking.
If this makes me way too PC as some have stated, so be it. But honestly, how would you expect someone to take the original post without the context of the Dialectizer web page to explain it? And what excuse for that is their? That the reader is supposed to already know about it? That centuries of repression aren't supposed to make him/her overly-sensitive to some things?
and if I tell you that I'm black, that I'm pretty sick and tired being told that "harmless humor" isn't meant to be derogatory against me, your whole theory ends up in the trash where it belongs
Well, I suppose that if I'd call you nigger you'd get really angry, ain't it ? Alright, let's go back to the point, this isn't a thread talking of racism, we're talkin' 'bout hacking/cracking. Let's say that from today everyone starts using afro-american to say "a person that genetically must do harms to other people, stay in gangs, and do every sort of nasty and illegal things". You'd be upset, right ? Ok, this is the exactly same scenario. What should we do ? Stay calm and relaxed sipping our Coke (tm) and say "alright, everyone's using hacker {afro-american} in a bad way, but what should I do ? It's only the language a-changing..." ? No way, as long as I can I'll fight the misuse of the term hacker in every manner. PS : you're acting in a way that tends to make people racist. If you're not able to recognize a joke it's a problem of yours. What should every UK citizen do if a should say "what's the best way to make a british smile when he's 80 ? Tell him a joke when he's 15 ! " ? They should all kill me ! Stay calm and have a goodday ! Bye, Lightman
Hackers of the WOrld Unite
by
Dionysus
·
· Score: 1
Eh, didn't we agree that, in order to be inoffensive, all occurences of the word hacker would be substituted with cracker when the media meant cracker, on Slashdot?
Besides, how dare CBS question our use of the word? Don't they realize we are the powerelite? What does it matter what everybody else is using, what the major dictionaries are defining? The Jargon File is the final say in this matter. If it's not mentioned there, it must be incorrect.
I think we should hold a rally in Washington, the One Million Geek March, to protest the unfair treatment (you know, getting paid lots of money, doing what we love, being associated with people who crack into systems) of the geeks. We could all dress up like Jedi, and Jon Katz could talk about how....
sorry, I usually zone out when Jon starts writing...
-- Je ne parle pas francais.
I'd never seen "whacker" before...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
... but I kind of like it. (Some of us southern boys take umbrage at "cracker", don't you know.)
Re:I'd never seen "whacker" before...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
hehe, well the term "whacker" brings to mind unpleasant images.. perhaps thats what avid porn-monkeys should be dubbed.
A cracker is a saltine. A hacker is an axe murderer.
The press routinely uses the wrong language to describe its stories. Anything to make the headline scarier to grab more attention. A prefect example is ANY 'gun' story. The press will routinely say that an 'arsenal' of guns was found whenever cops find a large amount (for the press that usally means more than 2) of weapons. The correct term is actually 'armory' but that doesn't scare people since many have some sort of National Gaurd armory near their town. People are used to the term armory. An armory is where weapons are stored, an arsenal is where they are manufactured. Another example is using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'. They are different items. In general just about all modern (post Korean war) weapons now use magazines to hold their rounds. But again, a magazine is newsweek or time, a clip is not as familier of an item.
Anything to make the headline scarier to grab more attention.
Reminds me of something (off topic)... The term "statutory rape" has always bugged me, and others, because "statutory rape," by definition, involves consensual sex. (If it weren't consensual, it would just be "rape.") Apparently, the media have noticed this contradiction, so they've started to avoid using the term. Did they switch to a more accurate term, like "sex with a minor"? Nope. Now they call it "child rape."
Er, statutory rape involves sex where one party is legally unable to give consent (because of their age or occasionally some other condition, like being in a coma). This is why the age of majority generally == the age of consent. Thus if you're employing "consensual" as a legal term then the hypothetical act most certainly isn't, and there's no contradiction - that's why it's called rape (again, a legal term). If you're using some more colloquial definition then that's fine, but don't expect it to provide protection from a court of law (or by extension, the media).
This is distinguished from hacker/cracker, where *both* terms are entirely colloquial (within various subcultures). The comparison is pretty inapt anyway, since there's a whole world of difference between any kind of rape and computer attacks (I wouldn't have much problem with people employing those semiautomatic whatsits on rapists, but I do have a problem with 15 year old "hackers" going to jail).
-- --
Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly.
~ Robert Doisneau
Re:Whatever sounds scary
by
Oarboat_7
·
· Score: 1
A 'troll' is a public utterance, almost always on-line, intended to incite a flame-war. It comes from fishing terminology. You 'troll' your fishing plug past the weedbed where the mighty Northen Pike lurks, in hopes that it will strike out and so become hooked. A 'trolling motor' is a small outboard motor, not powerful enough to be suited for tasks like water-skiing, but ideally suited for the slow putt-putt past the aforementioned bed of seaweed.
The ignorant misuse of this term is, to my mind, far more offensive than cracker/hacker, for it's scattered throughout/. discussions and is almost never corrected.
The truly ignorant refer to somebody who 'trolls' as a 'troll' when s/he is obviously a 'troller.'
What's the limit on clueless here, by the way? I wouldn't want to be nailed by the/. game warden for having more than the legal limit on my stringer...
NO OOGA IS NOT A FAN OF OOG. OOGA TRY TO FIND OPENSOURCE CAVEMAN BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN. I AM OOGS LOVER I MAKE OPEN SOURCE LOVE TO THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN I MAKE BIG STACK OF OPENSOURCE CAVE CDS AND SMASH OOGAS SLUTTY HEAD WITH THEM. OOGA JUST CAVE SLUT WITH BAD IMPLANT JOB!!! OOGS LOVER HAVE 32B CAVE BREATS THAT OOG LIKE VERY MUCH. HE LIKES IT WHEN I LOVE HIM IN BED HE IS VERY HAPPY WITH ME. HE LOVES ME VERY MUCH. I AM THE TRUE OOG FAN, OOGA IS SLUTTY WHORE!!! (AND SHE IS FROM CANADA)
What I find funny, is the word 'hack' actually had/has another meaning, even before the computer term arose to it's current status.
MIT is famous for it's constant barrage of practical jokes around campus. These usually range from putting a police car on the top of one of the buildings to Smiley Faces placed at strategic points. These jokes are referred to as 'hacks', and to my knowledge, always have been.
There's some pretty creative stuff in there, and most of the hacks follow a strict "Code of Ethics" guideline, and usually anything that violates the code wouldn't be considered a hack. (A tip of the hat to the CORRECT usage of the word.)
The page gets it right when it says: "Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking")."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.:P)
An indeed, the term "hack" also was used to refer in Oxford to both journalists, and those most reprehensible of beasts, student politicians after your vote.
The page gets it right when it says: "Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking")."
How right of you to point to MIT for origions to the "hacker" name! And the quote is a nice point, but an even better explanation can be found when you follow the link to their FAQ . There you will find the following:
Aren't hackers the people that break into computer networks?
Maybe to the rest of the world. Many of us at MIT call those who break into (crack) computer systems "crackers." At MIT, a "hacker" is someone who does some sort of interesting and creative work at a high intensity level. This applies to anything from writing computer programs to pulling a clever prank that amuses and delights everyone on campus.
And there's the crux of the problem. The "hacking" culture is generally a creative one - if a bit unorthodox. MIT, and other hotbeds of activity, generated their own culture way before the media dreamed it would devote so much front-page ink to computer issues.
The vandalism and network attacks that so often are labled as "hacks" have little to do with this creative culture. No wonder "hackers" would rather the media latch on to another buzzphrase for their headlines.
You're saying stuff that's mostly valid, but I think you are missing a few shades:
the code of ethics is more of a geek code of ethics, not a hacker code of ethics, but hacking originated within that cultural context. When hacking was exported (or even just explained) it was necessary to retrofit the code. My evidence for this would be the example of "moating", the practice of throwing people in the water around the MIT chapel (and also Freshman Shower Night which probably doesn't exist anymore): the person who is about to be submerged is allowed to remove belt, wallet, watch, etc. prior to being dunked. In exchange for this courtesy, the person stops struggling and trying to escape, only to resume the fight after taking off the fragile items. This is not hacking, but it has the ethic of not being irreversibly harmful.
"Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking")."
Cracking is circumventing passwords or other systems designed to limit access. The word had that meaning a long time ago (safe-cracking) and I think the hacker community picked up on that (and a linguist would point out the c/h initial fricatives made it a natural). Hacking is screwing around with things. I think that referring to guru-level coding as hacking is trying to make the point that what would be great feats to mortals are mere games to gods, and that mental activities that dullards find difficult drudgery, smart people often find fun.
Well, gee...maybe we don't get to bend English...
by
Moofie
·
· Score: 2
I think you've got it backwards. Seems like the article is a great explanation of why the "hacker" is used to connote malicious computer vandals. Words mean what people think they mean. Most people think "hacker" means "computer vandal". Some are aware of its other meaning "computer enthusiast/expert". I can jump up and down and scream that fire is "hot cockleorum", but that doesn't mean anybody else has to agree with me. I've always thought this is a pretty ridiculous debate...English (and, likely, many other languages) is not subject to the delicate sensibilities of its users.
-- Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 5
Some notes:
First, there are no such things as "true meanings." Meaning in language is created when reference is secured. Even among us, saying that "a hacker is in the system" quite reliably constructs a consistent meaning. (Let's leave Quine, Ayers, and Putnam out of all this for now, you language philosphers. If I hear about twin earth, I'll plotz.)
The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries. At this point, the geek community may as well say that the word "hacker" refers to white-tufted thrush, and that the appropriate term is "pendejo," for all the good it will do. The institutions that have the general authority to determine meaning in media, government, and education - the dictionary writers (who fill the void left by the absence of the sorts of language academies that France and Spain use) - have made their claim.
Language is created by usage. Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful, unless there is some real-world social or political tumult associated with it. If there is a civil-rights movement for hackers, perhaps the language about it will come under greater scrutiny. (Of course, that means, that if the public ended up meaning by 'hacker' what some folks here want them to mean by 'hacker,' the dictionary writers will eventually follow suit. I don't see any mechanism for that to happen - there isn't enough motivation on the part of the public.)
On another level, I think it is misguided to completely toss out the Hollywood hacker media fantasy. Of course there aren't teen-model wunderkind hackers rollerblading around the city. Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics. But the mediated image of the hacker does reveal a sort of public anxiety that so much of our infrastructure is now opaque to all but those with the technological expertise to decode it. It is a testimony to our (we being high-tech cognoscenti of different stripes) status, and the general public awe that it inspires. We should, if not embrace the glamorized image, at least be somewhat pleased that we can inspire it.
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
mrzaph0d
·
· Score: 1
If there is a civil-rights movement for hackers, perhaps the language about it will come under greater scrutiny. could I become a hacker-american then? "Leave the gun, take the canoli."
-- this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
PollMastah
·
· Score: 1
Language is created by usage. Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful, unless there is some real-world social or political tumult associated with it.
Hmm, looking at the impact we techies are having on the world today, I would not be very surprised if our usage of language will well become the "standard". After all, we are the ones who use hacker and cracker in the "proper" way, and if we come to have a great influence over the world, our usage will become standard. (According to the same argument.)
--
Poll Mastah
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
dalamb
·
· Score: 1
The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries. But dictionaries merely record the dictionary writers' beliefs about current usage. I'm told that North American English-speakers tend to treat dictionaries as Revealed Truth -- while British English-speakers are more likely to treat them as mere suggestions.
Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful. Unless you're writing for a popular medium, and get to engineer such usage as you like. Crackers called themselves hackers, and media representatives copied the usage without caring to check that the word was far better established as meaning "enthusiastic and talented programmer".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd"
- Ian Lamb, age 3.5
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 2
Dictionaries do more than just document usage as if it were nothing but a historical record. The provide a basis for generic and institutional uses of language, such as media, government, business, and education. By acting as a stabilizing influence on language, they ensure that we are more likely to understand a 17th century English document than a 17th century reader would be likely to understand the Canterbury Tales, and by contributing to the fiction of a 'standard' English which can be taught, actually gives people from communities that use a non-Standard English a chance to escape the 'class marking' of their dialects.
Your definition of the identity of 'crackers' is a bit presumptious. Another way to look at it is that some hackers wished to call other hackers 'crackers' because they don't like to be associated with them. As the article notes, the use of 'cracker' by the computer-savvy community postdates the use of 'hacker' in the media to describe computer intruders. It's actually an old version of the "True Scotsman" trick, a popular trick among religious people who want to disassociate themselves from the negative actions of other religious people. ("Oh, the people who led the Inquisition weren't True Christians, becaue True Christians wouldn't lead the Inquisition.")
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
swinge
·
· Score: 1
First, there are no such things as "true meanings." Meaning in language is created when reference is secured.
I think you're on the right track, but (a) you are giving primacy only to the listener and (b) you are using the word "meaning" where you should be using the word "definition". If you look from the point of view of the speaker, there is such a thing as a "true meaning." The words available may have ambiguous definitions, or the definitions may not be shared with the listener, but the speaker means what the speaker is trying to say, truly and unambiguously. (70% of the bitching on slashdot could be avoided if people looked for the meaning that the poster intended). And this is more or less the meaning you intended. I just wanted to tighten up your definitions.
Re:Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
GothChip
·
· Score: 1
"The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries."
This is what leads to a Catch 22 situation. The press are justifying use of the terms by quoting the dictionary, but most dictionaries are kept upto date through monitoring repeated use of new words/meanings in the press.
That's right. Just because you claim ownership of a certain set of professions within english-speaking society does not mean you get to define the words associated with them. What goes into a dictionary is common usage. And in truth, cracker is not commonly used in the way that hackers would want.
So get over it. The votes have been counted. Hacker means what it means. Positive and negative. Don't expect it to make sense, people. It's English. Our noses "run" and our feet "smell". "Cleave" is a word with two synonymns that are antonymns of each other.
Take a deep breath, and relax. And don't bother petitioning dictionary publishers. They just report common usage, they don't define it.
Pragmatist? Sure, if it works.
--
Re:English is a Democracy
by
Spud+Zeppelin
·
· Score: 3
Actually, to take your political analogy a bit farther though, English isn't a "democracy" at all... if anything, it resembles one of the anarcho-oligarchies of modern Latin America. You have a few families (dictionary publishers) laying down their version of "central authority", but at a lower level, no real governance exists beyond the local constabulary (local usage).
Case in point: "Sacratomato" -- you certainly won't find California's capitol spelled/pronounced that way in any dictionary, but there are literally millions of people (anyone who listened to Bay Area radio in the '70s) for whom that word both denotes AND connotes meaning.
Conversely: "Bubbler" -- the Merriam-Webster has adopted the Wisconsin-specific definition of the word (drinking fountain), but I'm quite confident the vast majority of the world's English speakers are completely unaware of that usage.
So there you have it -- a thin veil of central authority over what is really anarchy at any scale larger than the provincial. Which, not surprisingly, is much the same way that Mark Twain characterized our language a century ago....
My opinion only, IANAL.
--
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
So the media would much rather use their own language to describe these groups than use the terms described in the proffesional jargon. Instead of going by what computer experts agree on, they'd rather listen to other journalists.
In that case, let's stop calling Podiatrists by their professional given name. Let's instead call them Foot Fetishists, since it is more obvious to the layman what they are about (who knows what a podiatrist is, anyway?). That's pretty much the same thing as calling hackers crackers and vice versa. Let's also call Journalists Buffoons, especially the non-technical who decide they are more qualified to cover hi-tech topics than the professionals to whom this is bread and butter.
There's really no fighting the majority on English usage. If the bulk of people use "hacker" to mean people who break into computers, then hackers who don't break into computers will either have to pick another term or use a distinction like white hat hacker vs black hat hacker. (Personally, I'd like a blue hat.)
There are, as Ayn Rand pointed out, some words that have two meanings illegitimately packed into one. People routinely, for example, equate ethic with altruism on a fairly regular basis, assuming that ethical behavior is necessesarily other-regarding.
"Hacker" may well be one of those terms, given the majority's use of it, but it's hard to fight a word that has been so entrenched. Perhaps the most that can be done is make people aware that hacker has other, more benevolent, meanings.
Ayn Rand herself had a nasty run-in with trying to use a word to mean something overprecisely different from the common conception and semantics of the word. She tried to use "selfishness" to describe the peaceful ethic of acting in a manner to benefit oneself alone, without making demands on others or allowing others to make demands on oneself. Of course, this choice of terminology fell flat in mainstream thought because of the far-longer accepted informal understanding of "selfishness" as a miserly practice of self-advancement that often involved undercutting others...
The moral of the story? The linguistic baggage and social context of words can be more important than their precise (and especially) technical meaning when you're trying to communicate.
So, the problem is, the reaction to the "stealing" of hacker was to coin a new word. Maybe instead we should be pushing existing words, like "vandal" or "marauder". Or maybe we should just accept the complete and total ambiguity of the word, and let context decide for us, the way we do with most words in English.
-- My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If you have to define it, you can do it right.
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 5
Seeing as the journos seem to see the need to state a definition for "hacker" most every time they use it ("This Web-site vandalism is just another of the recent works of 'hackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers"), it's clear that they believe that the word "hacker" is not yet clearly-enough defined in the common parlance to stand on its own.
One does not, after all, state a definition for common words like "golfer", "policeman", or "beer"; that one states a definition indicates that one believes the word to need defining. ("The driver had been drinking 'beer', an alcoholic beverage made from fermented barley spiced with hops.")
Therefore, to say that they rely on the common parlance for the meaning of "hacker" is disingenuous. They might as well say "This Web vandalism is just another of the recent works of so-called 'crackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers." Doing this would serve the cause of education -- improving, rather than damaging, the common parlance -- and further would avoid pissing off hackers.
Re:If you have to define it, you can do it right.
by
alleria
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, this reminds me of an anecdote about the usage of English a while back:
an upper-class English woman was questioned as to her usage of a particular word, and about how her usage was inconsistent with what the dictionary said. Her response?
"I'm an Englishwoman, and the way I use English, defines the word!"
(Hmmm, rather like Alice in Wonderland, eh?) Nonetheless, I think she has a good point. Language is governed by usage, and in this case, they ought to respect the way their target community refers to various actions unique to that community.
If technically-oriented communities like Slashdot suddenly decide that the word for "unauthorized entry and use of a computer system" should be foobargle, then the media HAD BETTER start printing headlines like "Foobargle Detected at IRS Headquarters."
The media knows to stay the hell away from the word 'nigger' because the African-Americans among us find it offensive and demeaning, so why can't they stay away from the word 'hacker' in relation to the l337 d00dz and script kiddies? I know a lot of us find it offensive and demeaning!
Re:If you have to define it, you can do it right.
by
/cypher
·
· Score: 1
So why don't we do something about the definition that the journalists use? Especially in this CBC article, they seem to go strictly by the dictionaries, so let's change the dictionary definition. If Merriam-Webster and Oxford understood that some substantial portion of the population (i.e., those affected by the word's usage) wanted to see what we consider to be the correct definition, perhaps they would at least add it to their lists of definitions. In time, we might see the new usage become popular.
Call 'em 'fuckers' and be done with it.
by
unquiet
·
· Score: 1
We know what a hacker is: someone who can make furniture with an axe, or the technological equivalent. We know that a cracker doesn't necessarily have that much skill, but that their intent is malicious.
If Oxford, et al won't list a cracker as a malicious son-of-a-bitch with a script, surely they could fit fucker -- which already has a long historical meaning of being a wankerous person -- around the kind of moron who screws up a computer or network.
Of course, the trick is getting news services to print the word in it's new context. (Yes, I'm kidding.)
The New Hacker's Dictionary...
by
tchuladdiass
·
· Score: 1
One of the definitions given for "hack" in the Hacker's dictionary reffers to a "prank" (not necissarily computer related, but usually technical) (that's how I interpreted the deffinition, at least). So why wouldn't a computer prank (altering web sites, denial of service) be called hacks, and a person who performs these hacks be called a Hacker?
Re:The New Hacker's Dictionary...
by
DavidTC
·
· Score: 1
A DoS attack is not a 'prank', anymore then scattering fourty-thousand nails on the interstate during rush hour is a prank. It's an attack. It's not funny at all. (Sure the nails sounds funny...until you hit the traffic.)
Now, admittedly, 'defacing' web sites can be a prank...but it has to be funny, not 'we own j00!'.
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
since when do we get to decide what we're called
by
Miriku+chan
·
· Score: 1
it doesnt work that way. people give you a name, and you grow into it. thats how it operates
it's not like Black Sabbath got up in the morning and said "hey, we'll call this Metal". no. the others chose it, and they took the word and made mean something new. of course the counterargument is that spears does get up every day saying "hey, i think i'll make shit today" but thats another story.
see also punk (which means male boytoy and young elephant), funk, pirate, and web squatter.
*shrug*. just move on and bend the definition. after all, when you say punk, we dont think elephant anymore.
Let's see, I'm a hacker in the literary sense: the whole great works of literature thing doesn't appeal to me, just writing what I like. Now computers, I'm a marginal hacker: I'm working on my skills, can do some fixing and coding when needed, but I'm not at the point where you would want me coding the flight control systems for the jetliner you take when you fly off to destinations mundane. Now, I know a few people who are crackers, and who were called hackers by those who knew less. However, these people are also hackers as they do have some coding skills. However, I have also seen the iloveyou virus, which, though the media purports was written by a hacker, was writen by a script kiddee.
What does all this mean? I think it means that we need to start coining a few new terms for those with a bit of knowledge of computer systems, or prehaps a new term for me and my fellow literary intepts. Or maybe a new spelling for hacker in the programming/computer enthusiast meaning, Haquer perhaps?
Well, at this point, I'm almost conceeding hacker to the black hats, so I'm talking about a replacement for hacker in the good sense. I chose haquer because it looks vaguely european (it doesn't mean anything AFAIK), and hacker sounds more like a person suffering the side affects of 200,000 cigarettes than a person who writes code.
Although, it would be interesting see the numbers of hackers with hacking coughs...
I'm not at the point where you would want me coding the flight control systems for the jetliner you take when you fly off to destinations mundane.
Sorry to have to point it out, but society definitely does NOT want a 'hacker' by any definition of the word coding the flight control system for a jetliner. That kind of code has to be planned out, thoroughly documented, rinse&repeat times 20.
Definitely NOT the kind of code you want to 'release early, release often.'
Hackers do well to stick with coding nifty stuff they can show off to their 'peers.'
Sorry, but 99 percent of the general public thinks a hacker is someone who steals secrets and trashes computers. That's not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. You may as well give up. You sound like the people who complain because they can't use the word gay to mean happy anymore. The meanings changed. Deal with it.
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
I bet 90% of people think schizophrenia refers to multiple personality disorder. They are wrong.
I bet 99% of people use the word "illegal" when they mean "unlawful". They are also wrong.
I bet 99% off people don't know the difference between subjective uncertainty and objective uncertainty, but we can't really let them go telling physicists how to talk to each other, can we.
Sure, language evolves. Most of the time, there's nothing wrong with this. But sometimes we must resist.
I used to insist, when talking to friends about computer intruders, on using "cracker" and not "hacker". Now this insistence only invites derision, so I don't do it anymore. Now I just call computer intruders hackers, and the real hackers - "computer experts". Nobody challenges that (even if "expert" is sounds silly, and in a few cases doesn't apply at all). IMHO, this means *I* have won the argument, since they don't challenge that statement.
In anycase, I have seen Chinese newspapers translate "hacker" homonymously as "hei ke". Literally this means a "black visitor", thief or assasin. A very apt translation if you ask me.:-)
I think it's silly for people to try to clarify the difference between hacker and cracker to people who don't know the differene between a hard drive and a CPU.
Why bother? People have chosen to use hacker to describe computer people who do bad things. Give up people! Who cares? They don't understand the distinction between yahoo and netscape!
It seems that many people (including the author of the article) are implying that there is some malice on the part on whoever chose to define the words the way they have. It is, however, nothing more than linguistic evolution. The people who compile the Oxford English Dictionary have strict rules on word identification that they follow to the letter. There is no stupidity or oversight on their part.
To gain an entry in the OED, the researchers need to demonstrate a minimum of TWELVE published uses of the word with its new definition over a period of not less than FIVE years. On identifying this, an entry into the OED is made. Thus, the definition of a hacker in its new, controversial form has appeared because that is the way many people define it. This is the process of linguistic evolution, and it is constant and unstoppable.
To decry such a natural process is pointless, and should put you in mind of your grandparents complaining about how "they've hijacked the word 'gay' no it doesn't mean happy any more no it's disgusting isn't it?". There is nothing anyone can do about the redefinition of 'hacker' though. It will, from now on, always have the dual meaning, and the media feel entirely justified in using it as it is in the dictionary, as well as being a commonly accepted term by 400 million people. If you wish to help the OED correctly define 'cracker' then maybe you could supply them with a series of published articles spanning five years. Then it would appear in a later edition.
The only other potential solution is to find a new word for 'hacker' (non-malicious) meaning, and then use 'hacker' the same as the rest of the English-speaking world do, and then this thread will go away forever.
I am aware the dictionary authors, including the OED, go to great lengths to justify any word inclusion or definition change. I do not question for a minute the dictionary author's ability to find those 12 references in 5 years! I am confident one could find many more than that, even.
Your argument for linguistic evolution is certainly well-founded and I am hard pressed to disagree with it. However, being the curmudgeon I am (and I'm only 23. Ugh!), I for some reason feel the need to bitch and complain about something I find dear to my heart.
Even saying that, I would agree that language does and will change to fit the current times, no matter now strange and obnoxious they may seem. I look forward to helping define that new language, in whatever seemingly insignificant way I can.
Wow, my second/. post in one day. When I was coming up, a hacker was a) a person who was really good with computers, someone who really knew the ins and outs. b) Someone who used that knowledge to break into other computers in order to learn more about them. A cracker on the other hand (in computer speak at least) was a person who defeated copy protection in commercial/shareware software, ie, your key generators or your patch to remove the nag screen. This people were skilled themselves (how many people still know assembly? I don't). These are my definitions today and I don't really care how else they are used. I don't understand why people get so upset. A 13 year old kid (just cause you are 13 don't mean you aren't good, this is just an example) who runs a script to DOS you in my opinion is just a low-skilled bad hacker. If he "cracks" some program, he is a higher skilled hacker (good or bad, depends on if he did it for knowledge). If the same kid is writing kernel patches, he is a highly skilled good hacker. Anyway thats my opinion take it for what its worth.
-- --
Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the terms incorrectly.
According to the Webster's and New Oxford dictionaries, they aren't using the terms incorrectly.
Hacker... cracker... whatever... whining about the difference seems anal retentive. (this is going to cost me karma points, I'm sure)
Robert Morris. Cultural icon them. criminal today.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
What if Robert T. Morris has released an internet worm today instead of way back in 1988? Would he have received the same punishment today as he did back then?
Words.. Words.. Words... Words...
by
Jasonv
·
· Score: 1
How words evolved and fall into and out of usage can actually be pretty interesting. Pointing out where a word came from originally is generally a bad way to back up an argument for/against it's use.
For example, saying something is 'gay', meaning stupid, a lot of people will say is utterly wrong because it comes from homophobic people using it. It's not wrong because it was used by homophobic people and has since come into common slang for 'stupid' or 'silly' and is completly unrelated to homosexuals.. Of course, you still shouldn't use it simply because it offends some people.
A more interesting example is the word 'black' vs. 'negro'. Black was originally an offensive term used for Africans. In order to be polite people started using 'negro' and 'nigger'. Of course, ironically, the term negro became impolite (well, downright offensive, really) and so 'black' came back into style. (And of course 'African-American' for those PC types).
It just goes to show. A word only means what the majority of people think it means...
Re:Words.. Words.. Words... Words...
by
DavidTC
·
· Score: 1
You know, the term 'African-American' really annoys me, simply because it pretends you can decide someone's roots and nationality from thier skin color. Well, my roommate last semester was 'black', but he was not an 'African-American'...because he wasn't an American! Yet people kept calling him an African-American, even though he was just an African...a Kenyan to be exact.
Also, are there not people with dark skin who's ancestors haven't set foot in Africa for 2000 years?
I hate the term African-American, cause it's making two.assumptions about people, just cause they have dark skin...which the defination of racist.
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A malicious Hacker is still a Hacker.
by
SoupIsGood+Food
·
· Score: 2
OK, kids, anyone who's been on the scene longer than Linux kjnows the real scoop:
A hacker is someone who gets inside and groks systems. This is usually done with permission and to the benefit of the system, but not always. There are bad hackers and good hackers. Get over it.
A cracker is someone who breaks software copy protection. Period, the end. Most of them are pretty pissed at being lumped in with virus writers and "skript kiddeez".
The "hacker" vs. "cracker" debate is an excuse to co-opt language for political ends. I have little patience for political revisionism of common usage, -especially- when the revision is built on an ignorance of our own past.
True, nobody owns the words "cracker" or "hacker", and nobody can make anyone else use one word instead of the other. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that people who use the word "hackers" instead of "crackers" sound like fucking idiots to people who have a fucking clue. Stupid newbies who think they know everything and moronic reporters make me physically sick. Maybe one day we'll have something like in the matrix, where you can almost instantly educate someone about something if they want to learn it. Until then, we're going to have to deal with these fucking idiots.
Very, very few people in this community really care about hacker vs cracker. It's become one of those issues that is trendy to pull out when someone wants to establish their "hacker credentials". "Yeah, I really hate that the media uses cracker, too".
Please. This issue is dead. It always was dead. It always was a stupid issue.
--
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ironic the Candians came up with this article. What do they call Eskimos? The Inuit. Why? Because that's what the Inuit call themselves.
I'm from London. I hate it when Americans refer to me as British. I am not British. The only pople I've met that call themselves British are 1) Irish Prostestants 2) members of the British National Party. I'm English. Please refer to my tribe by it's own name.
This Limey luckily escaped England before ever hearing anyone describe themselves as a Brit, an appellation I would never respond to.
A truly offensive term used to descibe the indigenous population of the Americas is Indian, here in Canada they are First Nations people. Indians come from India. Another offensive racist term that is in common use is lesbian, I only know a few people from the island of Lesbos, capital L Lesbians and whilst the men find the term amusing the women have a real problem with it.
I'm from London. I hate it when Americans refer to me as British. I am not British. The only pople I've met that call themselves British are 1) Irish Prostestants 2) members of the British National Party. I'm English.
Strange that, I'm English but routinely refer to myself as British and I'm not in either of the two groups you mentioned. I only really refer to myself as English when I'm talking to non-English British. One can have a number of overlapping identities and refer to them according to the context (in global usenet groups I tend to see myself as "European"), rigidly sticking to one identity is, IMHO, close to the nationalism that you seem to deride.
My gay friends call themselves "gay". Out of respect we use the term that they prefer. CBC call the Inuit the name they call themselves. It just seemed odd that hackers didn't get the same treatment.
It is interesting to know that there is at least some sort of reason that media would not use the term "cracker". However, it seems to me that most journalist stampede to the term "hacker" just because someone else used it first. And the argument about the dictionaries defining a hacker as one who breaks security in addition to "computer enthusiast" is shady. After all, many dictionaries use the MEDIA as a source for their definitions. "We don't set trends but follow them" indeed.
It would be an interesting (if unlikely) experiment to have several newspapers start using the term "Cracker" instead of "Hacker" and see what comes of it. I'll not hold my breath, however.
The media seems to think we hackers should shut up and stop arguing because "the dictionary has spoken". Why should we do that? As at least one poster has stated, most jounalists would certain object to being called "opinion-mongers" for example. So why should all hackers have to put up with the derogatory use of the term when there is a perfectly good term for lawbreakers (like "vandals" or "crackers"). Then there is the argument "language is dynamic and changes all the time. You should bite the bullet and accept it" cuts both ways. Both sides can use the same argument.
Then again, there will always be some term to debate about endlessly and there will always have people using opposing monologues.
I'll watch the debate as it proceeds and continue to use the "correct" term and try to convince others to use it as well. I'll not cry foul too loudly if we all get shouted down, though.
Such is life.
--
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Sometimes I forget myself. People ask me why I look so tired (I'm up in the day because I have a JOB). My instant thought is maybe they can help me with whatever problem I was working on the night before, so I go into a long winded explaination. About half way through, I see the glazed over faces, and finish with a half-hearted "umm . . . hacking code"
The alternative is when you DO finish something neat, and you're all happy-like and want to show it off. Usually to people who don't care. Being a geek is an odd lifestyle. It's a wonder I have any friends left.
--
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
If this is something seen as 'news worthy' I really need to stay away from Slashdot. Grow up and use that effort to do some thing worth while, not argue relentlessly over the meaning of a damn word.... Stuff that matters my as$!
I tend to avoid both buzzwords. Programmers, developers and network security experts are better terms than hackers, with appropriate adjectives. Likewise, you can describe the bad guys as intruders and attackers. Black and white hats (gray ones too, I guess) are alternatives I also shun.
-- --Louis
Re:There are better terms to know
by
fReNeTiK
·
· Score: 1
-- I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
How to stop words from changing.
by
IvyMike
·
· Score: 1
Everybody knows that France has faced a similar problem for years. The French People keep using English words like "internet" and "computer," which goes against their policy of having a Perfect Language.
Thank goodness somebody found a solution. Simply declare the language dead and all is solved.
Re:How to stop words from changing.
by
Djaak
·
· Score: 1
This is even more related than what you think. Though English words usually make it into dictionnary as a result of common use (in which case I'm all in favor of it), sometimes stupid journalists think it is "cool" to use an English term when there already is a French one, and start to repeat it over and over hoping it will make it into the mainstream. That's dumb and I don't think it should be favoured. Interestingly, this is just what happened to the word 'hacker', the media seem to have picked it because it sounded more frightening than 'cracker'. Well now 'hacker' with the wrong meaning did make it to the mainstream I guess it's time to move on. It's pretty sad though, as I don't think the language should be defined neither by some group of auto-proclaimed 'experts' (fuck the French Academie!) nore by stupid journalists, but by common use. Unfortunately the medias sometimes have way too much power over that
FYI, and as far as I know, the French law only forbids the use of English with no French translation in manuals and commercials. The point of those laws is not to prevent the corruption of the pure French language by the evil English language. Thing is, the vast majority of the French are really terrible at English. The purpose of those laws is to make sure that people get proper information about a product before they buy it (for commercials - if ther ever was any such thing as an informative commercial), and that they get instructions about how to use them (for manuals). Some have argued that those laws might make the GPL illegal in France as the FSF refuses to realease official translations, but that's another matter... BTW your examples are bad ; internet is accepted because it's just the name of the network, and there's no need for translations for such things ; and as for 'computer', nobody uses that (at least in France) since there already is 'ordinateur'. Kind of interrestingly different ways to consider those machines : the English "computer", well, computes things, the French "ordinateur" sets them into order. Don't know which is more relevant though...
Your post was funny ; I'm not responding because I felt offended, not at all. It simply inspired me those overlengthy and partially OT remarks.
Re:How to stop words from changing.
by
ppanon
·
· Score: 1
Ah, you mean like those late night North American TV commercials advertising how you can get these brilliant faux diamonds at incredible prices?
-- Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Cracking doesn't. Hacking can.
by
cthulhubob
·
· Score: 1
> Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics.
This is actually kind of the heart of the debate, isn't it?
Cracking usually doesn't involve 3d imagery.
Hacking can. Follow this example.
If I am a special-effects wizard, working on production film for a movie, then I am hacking on the FX. A visually impresive explosion might be an exemplary hack, using definitions 1-6 of "hacker", and 2,4 of "hack" (www.jargon.org).
Also possibly using 8 of hack, if I enjoy playing NetHack in my spare time while the computer is rendering the frames (which I do/would). (www.nethack.org)
--
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Re:Cracking doesn't. Hacking can.
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 2
Outside a tiny (relatively speaking) demimonde, www.jargon.org has no real authority. Referring to it will be as effective as referring to the Book of the Subgenius.
The 3D imagery I was referring to in the Hollywood hacker stereotype is the swooping-through-the-network shots, the flashing "Access Denied" signs that spin in space, the crumbling walls that represent a bypassed security measure, etc.
Frankly, I think your term for 'hacking' as a verb is pretty general. I mean, I know what you mean (and that is the heart of the debate,) but such usages to me indicate a sort of "Me-too"-ism, sort of like sticking the word "engineer" at the end of a job title, because programming for some perverse reason enjoys a status in some communities that other forms of demanding technical work don't. "Hacking" can be as general as 'working really hard at something' or 'doing something cleverly.' I know I swore off from the philosophy of language, but I think of Wittgenstein's 'family resemblences' when talking about words and meanings: how the word game, for example, has a meaning whcih can't be bound by necessary and sufficient conditions, and includes things which merely resemble each other in some ways. If you think of 'meaning' as 'the ability for input to activate a term-node in a neural network,' then those sort of phenomenon makes more sense.
Re:Cracking doesn't. Hacking can.
by
cthulhubob
·
· Score: 1
> Outside a tiny (relatively speaking) demimonde, www.jargon.org has no real authority. Referring to it will be as effective as referring to the Book of the Subgenius.
Hail Bob! Find the true meaning of "Slack"ware!
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to get carried away. (actually, that slackware thing just came to me. makes you wonder, though...)
I understand what you're saying (despite getting the reference), but the thing is that when I attempt to speak of certain social groups of which I am not a member, I make an effort to utilize their terminology. It just seems like a small thing to expect the same courtesy in return. (sigh)
Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
You can't mean this! It's...the...end of...life as...we know it!
Help me!
(Falls over dead)
Game cracked by l33th4X0r
by
DebtAngel
·
· Score: 1
So for me, back when Commodore ruled supreme and no laws dealt specifically with computer games, Cracker = that guy who cracked the game.
So the cracker/hacker thing always made sense - the guy had to crack the game like you crack a safe. Then I grew up:).
On a side note, I always thought hacker was appropriate for programmers, because all we're doing is writing up code and hoping it compiles. At least I always felt like a cheap hack....writing Galaga in BASIC...or a side scroller with a flying spoon.
Not as abused as you may think
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 1
For this post I am defining a Hacker as someone with great skill with computers. Quote from media: A hacker or hackers in the Phillipines may be behind the ILUVYOU virus. Ignoring the fact that they are wrong in calling the ILUVYOU trojen a 'virus', the use of hacker is correct, because you can replace 'Hacker' with the phrase 'someone with great computer skill'. Wrong: Hackers break into computer systems illegally Right: A Hacker illegally entered a top secret computer system today.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not as abused as you may think
by
timftbf
·
· Score: 1
Ignoring, of course, the fact that ILOVEYOU wasn't written by 'someone with great computer skill', as you'll see if you look at the source.
Someone with a degree of *social engineering* skill - getting people to run the thing in the first place (although this is mostly down to simple user stupidy and the fact that Outlook is a big steaming pile of poo), and spotting several useful methods of propogation could, at a push, rank as some kind of social hack.
But the code itself should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of how existing virii / trojans / worms replicate and half an hour with the VBScript manual.
Regards, Tim.
Re:Not as abused as you may think
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 1
I did not mean to imply that I thought anything to do with VBScript could really be considered hacking. I just wanted to point out that the term hackers can be used when dealing with computer criminal, and not be incorrect. OTOH I was listening to some story on NPR where the guy said "We all know that hacking is illegal, but goverment regulation isn't the way to go.." When used that way, it really pisses me off. oh well. Ciao!
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Dictionaries Don't Define Words
by
iamriley
·
· Score: 1
People define words. Dictionaries merely document the definitions as best they can. The article says that cracker is not in mainstream English yet, but "being defined as a specific type of hacker in one respected dictionary is a start."
This is wrong. For the term to show up in a large general purpose dictionary, the meaning must already be (or have been) in mainstream use.
--
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
Re:Dictionaries Don't Define Words
by
jilles
·
· Score: 2
"This is wrong. For the term to show up in a large general purpose dictionary, the meaning must already be (or have been) in mainstream use."
Exactly. The point here is that "hacker" can be considered mainstream english (since it is often used in the media) whereas cracker is a word used exclusively by techies and therefore should be considered jargon.
The fact that a small group chooses to use specific other meanings for the words hacker and cracker is not relevant to document in a dictionary. Should cracker ever become mainstream english, a good dictionary will provide two definitions for hacker: the current, generic one and the one distinguishing itself from the term cracker. Both would be correct to use for any mainstream media although they had better stick to the second definition if they also use the word cracker.
Hacker/cracker are only one example of ill defined terminology in computer jargon. Try to get people to agree on terms like software architecture or object orientation and you'll find that there exist widely different definitions for these terms. That doesn't stop anyone from using them. Even if respected dictionaries would provide concise definitions for these terms, many people would choose to ignore them.
Some people have suggested vandal, which is fine since they're all dead and won't write any e-mail complaints to the CBC.
Umm... what about those of us who are University of Idaho Vandals?? Hmmm?? I would think that among people currently at my graduate alma mater, the people at the CSDS might have just as many (valid) issues with "vandal" being used as we in the obsessive-compulsive programmer community do with "hacker".
Personally, I don't see any good reason not to use "cracker". Applying a term that is basically a racial epithet for "poor white trash" to a different class of trash entirely seems ironically appropriate; perhaps it's actually not-so ironic -- has anyone done a study to determine how many system intruders grow up in environments conducive to being bereft of both values and motivation?
My opinion only, IANAL.
--
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Intense heat and pressure building within Spud Zepplin mounted and ruptured his thin skin, which festered, hissed, and shot forth: " Applying a term that is basically a racial epithet for "poor white trash" to a different class of trash entirely seems ironically appropriate"
Alright, so you won't mind at all if someone uses another racial epithet (possibly starting with a letter between M and O) to describe certain pharmaceutical dealers? Or is something only offensive if it offends you personally?
When has Vandal meant anything different from "one who vandalizes", before your school chose to use it as their mascot?
Alright, so you won't mind at all if someone uses another racial epithet (possibly starting with a letter between M and O) to describe certain pharmaceutical dealers? Or is something only offensive if it offends you personally?
I've never been a fan of political correctness. Period. Why someone would take more offense to a six-letter word starting with "n" deriding them for the color of their skin than they would to a twelve-letter word starting with "m" deriding them for the quality of their family relationships escapes me... name-calling is just name-calling, plain and simple. And to think that the "n" word is more offensive than the "m" word (you know the one, as in "Up against the wall, m...") in our society is mortifying: PC has become a more valuable commodity in our speech than good taste.
When has Vandal meant anything different from "one who vandalizes", before your school chose to use it as their mascot?
Long before it was a verb, the Vandals were a marauding tribe of nomads from Northern Europe. In fact, U of I's fight song opens, "Came a tribe from the North...."
My opinion only, IANAL.
--
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
... that one obsolete medium (the CBC) is using another obsolete medium (dead-tree editions of dictionarys) to defend their isiotic and improper use of terminology.
I have, at home, a dead-tree dictionary that defines "computer" along the lines of "a person whos job it is to do complex mathematical computations", with no mention of transistors, microchips, or silicon.
If *I* relied on dead-tree format references for MY language skills, how then, would I describe this box sitting on my desk?
If that's the only definition of computer that your dictionary gives, the it's a bad dictionary.
Dictionaries are point in time snapshots of word meaning - or at least the closest we can get. That makes them very useful. No photograph ever taken has ever depicted the world as it is - only the world as it was some time in the past. That does not make photos obsolete or useless.
Likewise dictionaries.
Some hackers feel that their definition of hacker is somehow more valid than a newspaper's definition of hacker, simply because they belong to the group described. This is obvious nonsense. Language is and always will be defined by those who use it, not those described or refered to by it. Thus, journalists and writers will always be the ones in the strongest position to change language. Deal with it.
I get fed up with people who think 'enormity' is the same as 'enormousness'. 'enormity' used to mean 'great wickness' but, hell, now it just plain doesn't any more. 99% of people use it to mean 'enormousness' and that's the way it goes.
We'll never win the hacker / cracker thing, but we will sure make ourselves look stupid trying.
-- -----.sig: file not found
Re:EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by
pallex
·
· Score: 1
Hey..no-one likes a `me too` post:)
hackers vs muslims vs jews vs christians
by
Hasdi+Hashim
·
· Score: 1
What do these four words have in common?
This is about name/word association. There are good and bad hackers, just like there are good and bad muslims, good and bad jews, and good and bad christians. Remember when muslims are associated with terrorists? christians as abortionist murderers? jews as money-grubbers? And you wonder why hackers are ticked when they are associated as computer systems breakers??!!!!
Like it or not, the media plays a role in name associations, good or bad. Every group of people named in a dictionary has to stand up and preserve the integrity of their name. Hackers are talented computer users. They can use their ability in a positive way or a negative way. I am appalled when the media tarnish a name of a group (by always focusing on the negative aspects of hacking) and refuse to hold themselves responsible for it. We have to put our foot down!
Hasdi
three one three three seven
by
esnible
·
· Score: 1
From the desk of your local network affilliate:
Authorities in the Philippines today arrested what experts are calling a "three one three three seven." The three one three three seven is believed to have written a virus that exploited poor security in a popular email program.
And now back to your regularly scheduled movie, "Sneakers" with Dan Ackroyd.
is it just me, or is a DDoS attack *neither* hacking nor cracking? Cracking involves some sort of infiltration, overcoming obstacles, etc., whereas DDoSing basically just involves flooding.
I agree completely. It would be nice if the media recognized the difference between "hacking", "cracking", and "phreaking".
When somebody gets past passwords, imho, that's cracking. If there's programming involved, no matter if it's for good or evil, that's hacking. And phreaking would be a nice term to use for generic network attacks.
I know that everybody has so many opinions on this topic that it's pretty silly to even try and agree on a set of definitions. But as "computer crimes" become more common, people will see the need for a set of consistent definitons to distinguish a "hacked" (generic) website, a "cracked" (insecure) website, or a "phreaked" (network) website.
Why don't the real hackers just "make up", or better yet, hack up, patch or port the word "hacker" and "hack" into a new word?
Seriously, mix it up a bit, come up with some word, NO ONE could dispute.
How do you spell pronouce "Hack" or "Hacker" in say latin? Let's use that, or if that sucks, what is hacker backwards in german?
It is a lost cause to fight for the word "hacker", it could mean a ton of things
cracker axe chopper murder washed up writer computer expert some that plays nethack a lot
Come on, lets get somthing new. What is (("hacker" in binary) x (3.16 in binary), multiped by 42) then converted back to ascii and translated to russian? We use that word, and put it under the GPL.
--
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
New word for Hacker? Nerds vs Spods
by
opk
·
· Score: 1
I think it would be far easier to accept the 'cracker' definition of hacker and find a new word for what we now call a hacker.
The word hacker for a computer criminal is now totally entrenched both in use by the media and by ordinary people. I tend to use it myself as well. Why not just leave it that way and come up with a new word for the people that are computer enthusiasts/experts. It would have a much greater chance of being adopted and would leave us with two distinct words.
I have to say that I don't really like the term 'Nerd' and that fact that it is used prominently on the slashdot web pages. It is generally associated with people who are sad and have no life which is not something I like to think of myself as being.
I think it is an entirely British expression and seems to be limited to some universities but when I was at university we were always called 'spods'. The meaning was as much that of a nerd as a hacker but depending on the context, there were times when I was refered to as a spod and felt that it was something to be prowd of rather than an insult (which nerd always would be).
Re:Robert Morris. Cultural icon them. criminal tod
by
mindstrm
·
· Score: 2
Worse. Much worse. Especially if it was as virulent as his original worm (ie: if similar security holes were available today). Unlike the speed of ILOVEYOU (which spread mostly due to user stupidity, yet still managed to make front page news the world over in less than 24 hours and cause lots of damage), morris worm would have taken much less time, and been much harder to get rid of.
Although, the morris worm couldn't have been written by a 12 year old.. it was actually REALLY COOL.
This debate really hacks me up... It's old news that the noisier/.ers seem to be all over how hackers should be called crackers etc... afaik this is not the first time some people have wanted to shove a new name down the throat of [whatever u call them], I remember that a fashionable word was "spiders" several years ago, before that word finally settled in the use it has today...
As long as hackers will call themselves hackers, what chance do you have of getting the new name adopted? Why doesn't the hacker-as-in-code-hacker-not-malicious-hacker community, which seems to be well represented on/., agree on a new name for *themselves*?
At the very least you would stand a better chance if you didn't choose a name that didn't have a well established meaning in the hacker-as-in-malicious community, where "cracking" means disabling copy protection / manual lookup passwords in commercial programs... But I guess it's not well seen to show respect for anyone who is not showing the slashdotically-correct behaviors and opinions.
I know nothing of what I wrote here is be new, but don't blame me, blame/. for stiring up this old story every several weeks... This is not a defense or apology of what hackers-as-in-malicious do, I consider myself a hacker-as-in-code-hacker and my point is that this whole this-is-my-name-find-yourself-another thing is so pointless!
As long as hackers will call themselves hackers, what chance do you have of getting the new name adopted? Why doesn't the hacker-as-in-code-hacker-not-malicious-hacker community, which seems to be well represented on/., agree on a new name for *themselves*?
Well, how about for the very good reason that that approach just DOES NOT WORK. See aforementioned examples of name changes for blacks, homosexuals, cripples, and other minorities which have gone through repeated name changes. The script kiddies will just start calling themselves by whatever the new name is, assuming you actually manage to get it adopted. The term hacker defines a dedicated elite, not a d3d33c473d 1337, and whatever you choose to mean the same thing will just be the new target for takeover by the same groups that are appropriating the name hacker now. The only way to fight this is by insisting on the proper use, or else we'll have a name change every decade. You fight here, or you run forever.
Hey that's it, the journalists and dictionary writers are in cahoots! The journalists get kickbacks for making it necessary for everybody to upgrade to, I mean buy, new dictionaries.
-- Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I felt that the article lost a lot to credibility when the author failed to know even what a script kiddie was. Holisticly, I got the impression that there was a constant switch between about 3 different dictionaries to help back the overall theme. As as stated in earlier posts, the dictionary makers don't just sit around and make up new words, it goes by what a large percentage of the population actually use. Admittibly, hacker/cracker/script kiddie are jargon terms(right now). But, the author tries to justify the use of 'hacker' to describe just about every computer event under the sun so that people are not confused. To me, that's false logic; using incorrect terms to describe an event actually introduces more confusion. When ever I read an article that states something about a 'hacker' I always have to actually read the entire article to figure out what they really mean by that. It's like trying to talk about an operating system but without being able to specify what operating system you're talking about outside of sentance context. Next time you talk about windows, mac OS, Linux or any Unix varient just refer to them as 'the operating system' because who needs to be more specific than that?
I liked the insights Shewchuk had into the use of the words in language, and how some of the top language reference sources treat the words. I am not a hacker, nor a cracker, nor a crackpot for that matter! But I do have some issues with something that was said in the article.
Shewchuk talked about this manual on writing, and a particular point that the CBC has since adopted. He quoted Michael Enright as saying "We do not follow the lead in accepting new words and phrases." That sounds all well and good, but isn't it becoming more and more clear to people that this isn't a new term? That the distinction that has been made has been there for over a decade? In a media dominated society, it seems clear to me that if the distinction between hacker and cracker is going to be made more clear to the world at large, then the media should play an important role in it. Where else will the populus at large hear the terms being used interchangably yet accurately? How many people in this world will know enough to ask their hacker friend or relative to explain the difference, then remember it a month later?
People in this world, including a portion of/. readers pride themselves on being hackers, and not because of the malicious damage that they can do, but because of the way they can take new technology and make it work for them. The kinds of things that hackers do is amazing to most of the world, and hackers should be able to proudly state "I am a hacker!" without worrying that his or her community will look at them, scared that he or she will wipe out their credit history if they don't get invited to the weekend barbeque.
I aspire to one day know enough to be considered a hacker. If I never break into NASA or some.gov or.mil server, I still want to be a hacker. I, on the other hand, never want to be a cracker, nor would I wish to be associated to those derivative individuals who are known as crackers simply because the world didn't want one more distinction to learn.
-- "I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure..."
I'm pleased that the referenced, and even quoted, The New Hacker's Dictionary/Jargon File. The only point I think they missed is that there is a perception among the hacker community that the word had its positive connotations first. The negative association with what we call "crackers" appeared later. We have been struggling against the careless aggregation of hackers and crackers lest we, the hackers, be mistaken for them, the crackers, in the public's mind.
We might have better luck teaching the press the term script kiddies and the reasons why we use it. I think even some of the crackers out there hold the script kiddies in contempt.
-- The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Well then, the way to fix it is...
by
CSG_SurferDude
·
· Score: 1
Well then, the way to fix it is to get the word into the OED. They seem to want references of the word "Cracker" over the past five years (Probably in a dead tree medium). If you're so ticked off about it, why don't you find dead tree uses of Cracker and send them off to the OED?
Not to mention the number of times the killer "used a semiautomatic pistol".
One of these days, ask a firearms-uninformed person (including your average reporter) what a semiautomatic pistol is. They have no idea, but it has the word "automatic" in it and we all know that fully-automatic weapons are illegal for most people in the US, right? So, semiautomatic weapons must be kind of the same thing, right? They're like machine guns, right?
A few others: Armor-piercing ("cop killer") bullets -- must be more deadly than hollow points, right? I mean they're ARMOR PIERCING.
9 millimeter -- Often used in conjunction with "semiautomatic" to sound technical and scary. Notice how rarely reporters say, "revolver". Why? Because it makes you think of old westerns more than our modern, high-tech, scary world.
Accidental Shooting -- No such thing. You put your finger on the trigger, you pull it, the gun goes off. See also: "The gun just went off!" and "Shot himself in the head while cleaning the gun" -- better known as "Suicide, but we can't tell the insurance company that."
Assault Weapon -- If you're using it to assault someone, what else would you call it?
You were doing fine with the stupidness of 'semiautomatic pistol', which is some completely silly terminalogy, and the over reporting of '9 millimeter' and 'armor-piercing', both of which are nowhere near the worst type of guns you can have, just the scariest sounding. But then you got:
Accidental Shooting -- No such thing. You put your finger on the trigger, you pull it, the gun goes off. See also: "The gun just went off!" and "Shot himself in the head while cleaning the gun" -- better known as "Suicide, but we can't tell the insurance company that."
Car Accident -- No such thing. You drive the car into something, it hits it, you die. See also: "He fell asleep at the wheel!" and "The brakes failed." -- better known as "Suicide, but we can't tell the insurance company that."
Hey, get over yourself. Accidently shooting happen all the time. I've been accidently shot. (With a B-B gun, luckily.) And 'assault weapon' has a legal defination. You cannot call a shotgun an assault weapon, or a handgun. It has to be at least a semiautomatic (Not sure if they count, or it has to be a fully-automatic).
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If a driver sees the stop sign coming and steps on the accelerator, yes we call that an accident. It is, however, an accident which results from a deliberate act of either negligence or maliciousness on the part of the driver.
There is another alternative: The driver noticed the stop sign too late, panicked and pressed the wrong pedal. Not too uncommon with newbie drivers.
The gun analogy would be "I was just loading my gun during shooting exercises, when my friend surprised me from behind. Unfortunately I automatically did the same turn-around-and-fire movement as I had been practicing..."
I have been contemplating marketing a new line of crackers. I would name them Hackers(tm). All of my commercial spots would revolve around the obvious misnaming of the snack food.
Jim: Want some Hackers(tm)? John: Wait! These are crackers! Jim: No, look, the box says Hackers(tm)! John: It's obviously wrong, these are crackers!
Hehehe. Even if you guys don't think it's funny, I laugh quite a bit at my ideas. Hehehe.
Who says we have to wait for the public to start using our term? Let me be the first to propose that we form a coalition of l33t cr@x0rs and break into Oxford's dictionary archives and change the terms to the correct usage.
-- It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The issue wouldn't be so hotly contested if the word did not have two, diametrically opposed meanings. The equivalent is to take any other word normally used to describe a person, perhaps even a term of honor and respect such as in this case, and reuse it as an insult. I doubt that journalists would idly stand by if, due to changes in the common vernacular, the word journalist was also used for "scum-sucking bottom feeder". The same principle holds true here. Anyone who is refered to as a hacker anymore is summarily insulted as although both definitions are supported their usage is so similiar that they are easily confused. I doubt I'd try to put cheese on Cletus (although you never know...) when you asked me about how I like my crackers, but a cracker and a hacker are both people who deal with computers to a large degree the rest of the distinction is on how they use them. If it was just the wrong term it would be tolerable, but to be insulted almost daily is something that ought to be changed.
Perl programmers aside, I think the problem is that programmers and computer techies have never liked context sensitivity.
'Hacker' is context sensitive. It means different things at different times to different people. Most English words are like. This makes it easier to express yourself accurately, not harder.
In the UK, hacker has long meant someone who hacks into computer systems. Because of the (more US based) meaning of 'skilled, unorthodox programmer' it has _two_ meanings. Wow.
'I was up all night rebuilding the mail server after some hacker trashed it' - can you guess what meaning is in use here?
'It was a fun company to work for, they had some pretty smart hackers there' - how about now?
Is it really so difficult that we must must must have a special word?
Yes, the phrase ' I think of myself as a hacker ' on its own might be ambiguous. But, in real life you simply would never get that phrase on its own. A live conversation would allow an unsure listener to ask what meaning the speaker intended. A written email or letter would never simply be that phrase all on it's own.
Perl programmers aside, I think the problem is that programmers and computer techies have never liked context sensitivity.
'Hacker' is context sensitive. It means different things at different times to different people. Most English words are like. This makes it easier to express yourself accurately, not harder.
In the UK, hacker has long meant someone who hacks into computer systems. Because of the (more US based) meaning of 'skilled, unorthodox programmer' it has _two_ meanings. Wow.
Context Sensitivity is not the same as Speaker Sensitivity. Please be careful of the difference.
'I was up all night rebuilding the mail server after some hacker trashed it' - can you guess what meaning is in use here?
'It was a fun company to work for, they had some pretty smart hackers there' - how about now?
Is it really so difficult that we must must must have a special word?
Yes. Not every context makes this distinction so clear. Suppose I say, "That man is a hacker." What does that mean?
Yes, the phrase ' I think of myself as a hacker ' on its own might be ambiguous. But, in real life you simply would never get that phrase on its own. A live conversation would allow an unsure listener to ask what meaning the speaker intended. A written email or letter would never simply be that phrase all on it's own.
Why not? Because it might confuse some people? A lawyer might be careful to explain the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" (look it up. Illegal probably doesn't mean what you think) to a layman, but I'm guessing they expect other lawyers to know the difference. Should we deny them a chance to talk about these two different concepts with two concise words simply because many laymen don't understand the difference?
Stop trying to erode the precision that the rest of us need in this language.
We've got to reverse the language subversion foisted off on us by the Leaders of Our Community (or whatever.)
'Cracker' historically is defined as someone who enjoys defeating the copy protection in copy-protected games (also known as "cracking" them.)
If you don't like your term 'Hacker' being redefined to mean 'someone who illegally breaks into computer systems' then you should stop trying to redefine somebody else's term ('Cracker') in the same fashion.
ESR is as guilty of this as anybody. I find it deplorable that an extreme zealot like him has custodianship of the 'Jargon File.' In effect, having someone like him involved just reduces the relevance of the aforementioned 'file.'
>If that's the only definition of computer that >your dictionary gives, the it's a bad dictionary.
It's not a BAD dictionary by any means, it's an edition of the Oxford dictionary of the English Language. But it's an OLD dictionary, given to me by my grandfather and dating from the '30s as I recall.
>Some hackers feel that their definition of hacker >is somehow more valid than a newspaper's >definition of hacker, simply because they belong >to the group described
No, the journalist's definition is wrong because they display a complete ignorance of the meaning and history of the word. They don't bother to check the jargon file OR the history of the word.
Have you ever read Stephen Levy's "Hackers"? If you had, you'd know that the word originally didn't apply to computer work AT ALL. It came in to use at MIT's model railroading club. And even when it DID move into the computer field, it still only had positive connotations.
It wasn't until some idiot in the mass media who had no comprehension of the culture he was describing needed a buzzword to scare the unwashed masses that hacker was equated to cracker. The negative connotations of hacker are a completely manuefactured fiction of tabloid-level journalism.
If you HAVEN'T read Levy's book, I suggest you do. He did quite a good job of chronicleing the hacker culture, and the entemology of the word "hacker". And beyond it's value as a history text, it's a fascinating chronicle in of itself.
There is no war to be won or lost. "Hacker" (used in the positive sense) may never gain mainstream acceptance, but it can have a long and healthy life as a slang expression. Thirty years ago, the the slang word "cool" was popular, and it is popular today. Most of you reading this have used it. But after all that time and usage it is still slang, unofficial. I have never heard a news anchor use "cool" other than to refer to temperature. For a while, "bad" (meaning good) was a popular expression, precisely because it was opposite to mainstream usage.
It doesn't matter what the news organizations do. "Hacker", in the good sense, is here to stay. The reason is simple: the word "programmer" is just plain un-sexy.
Who here remembers when a cracker was someone who broke copy protection? That's what i think of whenever i see a reference to "crackers." Well, either that or the round salty snacks. --
This is the same as the Linux vs. GNU/Linux Debate
by
orichter
·
· Score: 1
Isn't it?
It's always amazed me how the same people who get all concerned about journalists using the word hacker when they mean cracker, tell RMS to get over it in regards to the whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing. Is this just my imagination, or are these two distinct groups of people.
It's just a connotation versus denotation thing. The other day, I saw that a friend of mine got a new bike, so I said, "So you finally got your new bike, huh?" He said, "Dude, it's not a bike, it's a Colnago!" The connotation was totally lost on me. As far as I was concerned, it was a bike. The same is true for the public with hacker vs. cracker. The distinction is unimportant to the general public, just like the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux is unimportant to most people who use it. The only time when this really becomes important is when you are having a technical conversation with someone in a particular area of expertise.
When my girlfriend or family ask me what I do at work, I might tell them that I work with UNIX, but when an employer or co-worker ask me I might tell them I work with IRIX. In both cases I refer to the same thing, but in one, I am being more specific. For this reason, if I was writing a story for the New York Times, I would probably use the word hacker. If I was writing for slashdot, I would use the word cracker. In neither case would I be wrong.
Re:EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by
DavidTC
·
· Score: 1
I agree!
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How come when people of color complain about a descriptive term, no matter how common it is (eg. black vs. African American), the media immediately begins to use the suggested alternative term? Or people with disabilities - they are no longer "handicapped", they are "physically challenged". They don't check a dictionary before proceeding. They don't check for common usage. They do it to appease the special interests.
If the media is willing to change terminology for special interest groups, why can't they change terminology for the hackers out there? I am offended when the term Hacker is used to describe a crack or an act of vandalism.
Additionally, the "hack" in "Hacker" is probably derived from the "hacking of wood" definition. A wood hacker hacks apart the wood, than builds something useful with it. A computer hacker hacks apart code, than builds something useful with it.
"Cracker", in my definition, is a subset of the "Hacker" community. It is someone who hacks apart code, then exploits it. Same skill sets, different objectives.
Are a locksmith and a thief synonymous? Both know how to pick a lock. Both are familiar with the inner workings of a tumbler. However, one uses that knowledge to construct new locks, better locks, the other exploits the knowledge for personal gain.
And, in reference to the actual article, a "hack" is a type of journalist. Hence, by the logic of the author, a truly crappy article can be attributed to a journalist, even though journalists may refer to it as being written by a hack.
Hacker and Cracker are used to differentiate between motives and goals. The skill set may be the same, but the objective is what matters.
-NYFreddie
-- Barbie of Borg -
She doesn't just Assimilate,
She Accessorizes too!
CRACKER=SOFTWARE PROTECTION DEFEATER!!
by
BenJeremy
·
· Score: 1
Geez. Ever since I had a little C=64 the term "Cracker" has ALWAYS referred to an individual who writes "cracks" for programs that have copy protection routines.
"Hacker" is a person who infiltrates systems and/or causes damage to said system
"Phreaker" is a person who uses knowledge of the phone system to illegally access it for free phone use.
"Slacker" is any slash-dotter wannabe who can't figure out what the difference is!!!
Really, "Hacker" is the proper term to use... they "hack" into systems. A "Cracker" does not infiltrate systems, not at all. Go out on the web and look up "cracks" - they have NOTHING to do with computer security!! However, a person could be BOTH a hacker AND a cracker.
OK, a hacker is a computer programmer -- they are more 31337 than those who breach network/system security ("crackers"). Crackers are a much smarter and creative lot than those who deface websites, so those folks are called "script kiddies".
At some point, you just have to give up and accept multiple definitions. What do you call a person who does not break security measures and writes "cracks" to uncripple certain software titles? How many derogatory terms are there for white people other than "cracker"?
A "true" hacker can call themselves a "hacker" all day if they want, but don't be surprised if someone gets the wrong idea. When I came in to work in a good mood, I could have run around in the office telling everyone that I was "gay", but again, there's the problem of someone getting the wrong idea.
Give it up, and get over it. Thank you.
--
--
-- fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
Do all these terms matter?
by
ishpeck
·
· Score: 1
Who cares what they're called? (Hackers, crackers, phreakers, pirates, BBS SysOps, unofficial politicians, Native Americans (Not Indians), etc.) It's what they do that defines them.
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
--
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Abandon all hope, ye who desire precision English
by
TheShrike
·
· Score: 1
What can you expect from a culture which is either incapable of distinguishing, or indifferent to, the difference between a modem and a router. Even precise technical terms like "modem" can lose their meanings - at least in common usage, when they get migrated from their original environment.
Mathematicians cringe when people use "precise" in place of "accurate", and vice-versa. How about "tidal wave" for "tsunami", "venue" in any non-legal context, and "assault weapon" for anything that even remotely looks like a modern military assault rifle.
You can't expect better treatment for what are, after all, slang terms.
Regarding dictionaries, I gave up on them when they started describing "anxious" and "eager" as synonymous.
--
-- If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
imo we would be served well if the main stream press used neither of these words. Using "theif", "vandal", or "script kiddie" instead. Words have power, some folks get a charge out of being known as a "hacker" regardless of the conotation, it says to the world that they have talents and skills others do not.
Identifying someone as a "script kiddie" is prejorative, no one wants to be branded with that tag, even if you aren't sure what it means it doesn't sound good. "Pety theif" would be better then "theif" actually as it has a cheapness to it
The use of less romanticized words might actually have a bit of a chilling effect.
Why not make a NEW word?
by
JammmGrrl
·
· Score: 2
If the media insists on calling them hackers, and the mainstream culture thinks of hackers as crackers, why not just make a new word to describe all smart computer geek types, and let them have hacker denote cracker?
I do have to admit, when I think of hacker, the first thing that comes to mind is the cracker/phreaker/skript kiddie type. THEN I think of all my friends, the ethical crackers, the linux geeks, etc. And I've been online as a computer geek for 8 years. It's a perception that is carved in stone.
Incidentally, there is some romanticism to the hacker idea. Hackers (as we call them crackers) are like pirates... and old west outlaws. And vampires. Pirates were bad people. They killed, raped, maimed, stole. But people like that image. They secretly wish they could have been a pirate. It was bad, evil, and romanticised as being exciting and fun. The hacker is the modern pirate, and I suspect 200 years from now, the hacker genre will be the same as the pirate or old west outlaw genre is today. The romanticised bad guy that people want to be but don't want to admit to wanting it.
Likewise, there isn't much in the pirate genre that's realistic or historically accurate. Do you think "Arrr, Matey! Walk the plank!" does any justice to who pirates really were? It's the same with the Hacker paradigm. It's unrealistic, but people want it that way. There's nothing to fantisize about when you know that most hackers do nothing but sit around staring at driver source codes to get their new USB mouse to work. There's nothing exciting about that. The public wants to think about kids with funny hair-dos and camo laptops bouncing signals off of satalites and breaking into the Pentagon.
What about script kiddes?
by
Compenguin
·
· Score: 1
`VANDALS
By the way, purists have argued that if you launch an attack against a Web site without actually busting through a security wall you're not really a cracker since you haven't slipped inside. So if you aren't a cracker, and don't qualify as a hacker, what are you? A whacker? Or maybe just wacko? Some people have suggested vandal, which is fine since they're all dead and won't write any e-mail complaints to the CBC. (Vandalism comes from the word Vandals, who were members of a Germanic tribe that invaded Western Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries.)'
I see script kiddie fitting that bill. Which reminds me its 3:00 and all the script kiddies are out of Middle School now. -Compenguin The Jedi of the Prequels
Hack vs. Crack Both Negative
by
crypto_creek
·
· Score: 1
I've been in the computer field for 35 years and I have never heard the term "hacker" used in a complimentrary way. Same for "cracker", unless you are from Florida or Georgia. We also call them "bit-flippers". People that like to tweek and not document their work. Hackers better come up with another word. They lost the battle a long time ago and are not socially aware to realize it.
-- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:Hack vs. Crack Both Negative
by
GemcutterTony
·
· Score: 1
35 years in the computer business yikes! You must be old enough to remember when programmers used soldering irons and code writers were bottom feeders that supplied the raw material for programmers to burn for the circuits they had designed.
Then when the 70's showed up and these jumped up key pounders started using the term programmers to describe themselves without having a clue how to design a circuit or operate a burner.Needless to say the (real) programmers were choked up.
It wasn't long before premade tools such as assembly editors and debuggers started showing up allowing any idiot with a book of opcodes to write or change code, of course these code changers quickly became known as hackers by the then (real) programmers because they chose a byte wasting but time saving hack instead of the more elegant rewrite, to improve prewritten code.
Well this WAS the 70's and it was very hip to claim and use an offensive epithet for self description, 'Freaks' of course being the hippest. Unfortunately for us the hackers not only chose to keep the name they also kept their programming habits, this was the birth of the dreaded bloatware. The Wedge for Commodore's PET BASIC comes to mind as a fine example of ugly hacking.
The 80's granted credence to high level languages as computers got bigger and faster and any fool that could put together a few lines of BASIC not only called themselves programmers but were selling these awful creations for real money! Sadly this crop of wannabees were now too far behind their heroes to see the difference between elegance and a hack job even when confronted with source code and so the asm programmers got lumped in with the asm hackers, much to their chagrin, as once more the worm turns. I don't think we've seen an elegant piece of code since then. We all know that bloatware sells hardware and bloatware is quickest and cheapest to produce so it's obvious where the encouragement is going.
Surprise, along with the 90's comes another use of our favourite epithet along with another crop of wannabees and a new group of outraged victims. Now we have a new spelling to add to the growing pile of victims as the '5kRyPt KyDdI3' seem to prefer 'h4X0rZ' which doesn't change the pronunciation but will either annoy or be ignored by the press.
I cannot think of any occasion where a slur or epithet, adopted or not, is seen as anything other than offensive by the general public My personal favourite example of language growth was the decision of the Englands Judiciary to adopt an acronym to protect the sensitivities of gentlefolk from hearing such shocking phrases as 'fornication under carnal knowledge' being uttered in courtrooms.
As the gentleman from the Navy said in an earlier post : "If I say 'where's the head' to any sailor he'll direct me to the restroom. If I say it to a waiter he'll look at me funny". His point was that a word means different things depending on the audience.
The problem is, when we talk to the waiter we have a different word (restroom instead of head) that conveys the same meaning. Among hackers the word "hacker" has a specific meaning which is different from "cracker". In the rest of the english speaking world "Hacker" means what we think of as "cracker", however, they have no equivilent word that means what we think of as "Hacker".
By allowing the word Hacker to mean Cracker in the media (and therefore in the common language) we have lost a noun that describes a person who creates an elegant solution to a difficult problem. There is simply no alternative word to use.
The solution? We either make a big stink about this little mis-use of the language and take back the word "Hacker", or we invent a new word that the public will recognize as meaning what "Hacker" has meant all along.
This reminds me too much of the whole Trekkie vs Trekker "controversy". I can't believe I'm going to quote Shatner, but here it goes... "Get A Life!"
A new word without the negativity?
by
dml6
·
· Score: 1
Why don't we just come up with a new word. One that doesn't contain all of the baggage and negative conotations of "hacker".
I thought about it for a minute and came up with "tune". A person can be a tuner, then can tune a 'puter, or fine-tune a box. ie "I am tuning this machine."
The JoeBagOfDoughnuts media will keep using hacker, because they love the word so much and we can identify ourselves how we want with this new meaning of "tune".
I agree with a few of the things that were said here today:
1) The media commonly misuses terms anyways (ie: arsenal and clip). 2) No one outside of the hacker/cracker community really cares. To them, it's just geek-speek. 3) We've been arguing this hacker/cracker debate for (how many years now?) and the best that we've gotten is to define cracker as a sub-type of hacker. 4) Languages reflect the way most people use words. When the majority of the people in the world focus on the cracker definition of hacker (because it's more exciting to talk about a criminal mastermind (yes, I know script kiddies are far from criminal masterminds, but the general public doesn't know the difference -- to the general public, a working knowledge of DOS commands makes you a computer guru) than to talk about someone who just tweaked vi), then that definition becomes the accepted one. (Sorry for all the parenthases, I just finished coding in Lisp...)
Essentially, my point is that I don't believe that the term hacker will ever lose it's cracker connotation. The best we can do in this battle is to create a new term (coder? sourcerer?) that we can promote as a sub-type of hacker who follows a code of ethics and works to improve existing code. If we can do this, then hacker won't be incorrect, it will just be non-specific. It would be like saying "Mammal Held Up Convenience Store." It's technically correct, but there is a better, more specific term.
If we refocus our energies on informing the media that there is a more specific term (a *type* of hacker) instead of trying to convince them that all the dictionaries are wrong, then we will be fighting a battle that we CAN win.
Z'
PS: If someone has more time/money than me (a poor grad student), then creating a website like DefinitionOfAHacker.org (or whatever) to promote this idea would be a great start!
Language is open source
by
Weedhopper
·
· Score: 2
It really strikes my irony bone when the propeller heads of the world (esp here on/.) get bent out of shape about the way the public use words like hacker to describe "the wrong thing." Face it, language is the biggest open source project undertaken by man. Words come and go, if you like a word, you use it. If everyone uses it and finds it useful, it becomes a part of the next kernel recompile. If you're still using a old version and don't keep up with the updates, you end up like an old Eskimo, floating off on an iceberg. There's a delicious irony when would be hackers here of all places, complain about the public hijacking "our" word. In desperately trying to control the word, the hangers on of the world are unknowingly becoming what they despise the most. The language code is free.
Re:Language is open source
by
titus-g
·
· Score: 1
--eskimo is deprecated please use --inuit
--
~ppppppppö
Re:Language is open source
by
streetlawyer
·
· Score: 2
If you're still using a old version and don't keep up with the updates, you end up like an old Eskimo, floating off on an iceberg.
Or indeed, a Finn, refusing to join in with the dominant Indo-European system, and trying to cling to an antiquated Ural-Altaic language . . . . .
MAFIAdot: "News for Murderers, Assorted Felons, and Internet Attorneys, Stuff that doesn't involve you, bub!"
Guido the Clueless writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term 'criminal' versus 'community-minded businessman with strong family values'." Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the term incorrectly...
Now why are we so sure that we know the "correct" meanings of the word, and the proper use of the term?
1) 99% of the world certainly doesn't agree 2) It's irrelevant that "we" feel "we" are the people they are talking about. Would we let pedophiles decide what *they* should correctly be called? Sorry, if we have our preferred term and it doesn't catch on, tough luck. 3) even 'hacker' *was* used at MIT in the 70's to describe computer cracking. There was a variety of distinctions and terms usd, none universal (white hat, evil, chaotic neutral, underground, etc.) And it wasn't that the issue didn't arise. There were countless discussions of how outsiders (and even many apparent cognoscienti) 'didn't understand hacking'
Sorry guys. I would've loved to have won this one -- and I suspect that someday we will (when society recognizes the need for these distinctions and adopts terms -- of it's choosing -- to reflect them.
Right now, were just militant whining PC advocates (Political Correctness -- the *other* PC)
_____________
--
If you can go to bed, knowing you did
a valuable thing today, you're very lucky.
If you can't... it's not bedtime
Great! How to fix it. (Also: Where it came from)
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 2
This is great!
It tells us why the media remain resistant to our attempt to correct their misusage, and also where to hack the problem:
Newsies are resistant because the dictionaries are giving them support for their misuse. So it isn't enough just to tell them how ignorant they sound, and how much it reduces their credibility, when they perpetuate the misuse. Instead the place to fix it is with the publishers of dictionaries.
Dictionary publishers are research organizations. The dictionaries are distilled from their (heavily documented) databases of historical usages. (Much of that is news articles, so it's somewhat circular. But they also include lots of other sources - letters, diaries, published books, etc.)
They also put in a few bogus words (just as mapmakers put in phantom roads and small towns) to check that their competition is doing its own research rather than plagarising their work.
The way to get them to modify an entry or include your definition is to give them documentation of the usage, with dates and references so they can check. The earlier the better for origins - some of them list words in order of first common use rather than current prevalence.
===========================================
By the way: The misuse of hacker for security breaker apparently came from a presentation by an early self-proclaimed "security expert" to early IT department managers and other upper management types. (One of the hackers in the audience was puzzled by the misuse, though he did not question the presenter about it.) It was the managers' first exposure both to many of the computer break-in threats and to the term "hacker", so the misuse apparently got going in the pointy-haired boss circles.
Of course, PHBs listen to each other - especially those one or two levels above them - a LOT more than they listen to their employees. So once it got started in management it tended to stick.
In those days the set "crackers" was nearly a strict subset of the (much larger) set "hackers", in the same way that "rustler" was nearly a strict subset of "cowboy" or "(sea) pirate" a strict subset of "sailor". There wasn't public access to an internet or a set of widely-distributed penetration tools - crackers had to roll their own. Even the basics - like a terminal or a modem - were mostly accessable only to people in the business.
Of course now it's a much different story. Powerful computers are readily available to all for cheap, as are modems and network access. Penetration tools are traded around freely. So a would-be computer cracker doesn't need to develop the skills of a hacker, or even of a programming duffer, to start breaking into systems.
So the set "crackers" now has about as much overlap with the set "hackers" as the set "taggers" has with the set "fine-art painters".
(And in case you're wondering why I told you a lot of stuff you already knew - it's because this might be read by some news editor or dictionary author who didn't already know it. B-) )
And in case any are listening:
- Someone who is an exceptionally skilled programmer is a "hacker" or "computer hacker".
- Someone who breaks system security is a "cracker" or "computer cracker". By analogy with "safe cracker".
- Someone who makes a profit from stolen computer programs or data (or otherwise distributes it without the permission of its proper owner) is a "pirate".
- Someone who damages data, programs, or system function or availability, is a "vandal". (This includes the computer equivalents of everything from graffiti through arson to germ warfare.)
A person may be a member of any or all of the above sets: For instance: Someone might steal and sell or use credit card info from a site he broke into using tools he wrote himself, and damage the site in the process (for instance - to cover his tracks). He might be all four:
- A pirate, for his use of the credit card info. - A cracker, for obtaining it by breaking system security. - A vandal, for damaging the database. - A hacker, for being skillful enough to write de-novo a tool capable of penetrating the system's security.
But these days little psycopaths usually skip "hacker" - because they can get the tools to do what they want without spending years becoming skilled enough at programming to write them for themselves. Why work so hard - and probably get caught during the learning process - when it's easy to get tools from others?
Meanwhile, the people who DO spend the time to become hackers have better, and more lucrative, things to do with their skills than steal credit cards and trash web sites.
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It doesn't matter what the media calls us/them. If you don't want to be considered a hacker because of what *they* say look at it this way, we're just geeks. Does it really matter? We do what we love, we understand what they don't and we make a ton of $$ doing it. Let them be wrong and us happy.
one reason why journalists are in no hurry to use the word ``hacker'' in any sense that self-acknowledged hackers would recognize as legitimate may be the old non-computer origin of ``hack''. Originally, a ``quick hack'' or a ``hack job'' referred to any solution thrown together quickly using whatever you found lying around. For an engineer (and by extension a computer programmer,) being called a ``hacker'' could thus be seen as a compliment, since it means you're very good at modifying existing equipment to do tasks it was never intended to do. but for writers and journalists, being called a ``hack'' is no compliment, since it implies you aren't producing quality work.
so let's start spreading a new meme: only hack journalists call criminals ``hackers''.
(as an afterthought: you might want to start defining ``cracker'' as a CRiminal hACKER.)
20 years ago I used to drive a hack. Then I became somewhat of a computer hacker. Now I am a hack writer.
Hacking has always been my life.
-- Ideology is for ideots.
Strange new brand of political correctness
by
shaggz
·
· Score: 1
This type of petty nitpicking never ceases to amuse me. You can't deny that if you asked a bunch of strangers off the street what a hacker was, you'd hear things like "making viruses" or "breaking into computers". While the media is almost certainly to blame for the widespread use of this definition, there really is not much that can be done to stop it, nor is there really even a good reason to attempt to settle the issue. This all goes back to the idea that the English language itself descriminates against certain groups. However, instead of coming up with new words or euphamisms like the politicaly correct thought police have done, those involved in the hacker/cracker argument want to change the definitions of existing words. This is almost like the NAACP declaring the word "nigger" now means "intelligent, successful person of African descent." If that were to happen, I wouldn't expect the KKK and friends to convey that meaning when they use that word (and they most certainly would).
Re:Strange new brand of political correctness
by
JordanH
·
· Score: 2
...You can't deny that if you asked a bunch of strangers off the street what a hacker was, you'd hear things like "making viruses" or "breaking into computers".
Let's face it. Most people think that people who stay up all hours writing code are "making viruses" and "breaking into computers".
Part of the problem here is that the general populace just doesn't see computer programming as an engrossing craft. They think only in terms of what they could understand as being exciting. It's sad, but people really can't see much that's exciting about computers, apart from pr0n and other web browsing, which requires no special expertise (they can do that), except using them to break laws and hurt people, or perhaps to counter those who do evil things.
To most of the general populace, a real computer expert is someone who can break into systems or create viruses. The distinctions between hacker and cracker to them, even if carefully explained, would seem trivial. They'd think that a hacker is just a cracker who uses his skill for "good".
Look at the "good guy" computer geek characters in any television show. We're supposed to believe that they really know computers, but pretty much all we ever see them doing with this expertise is break into systems.
-Jordan Henderson
Re:Strange new brand of political correctness
by
Tony-A
·
· Score: 1
Thank you. This is why the hacker community must insist on the correct definition of hacker. If hackers invent a new term for themselves, it comes off like a euphemism, and eventually erodes into something derogatory. Polical correctness has an inherent problem in that it tacitly acknowledges that there is something that one should be politically correct about -- as in what is the proper current terminology for "them" these days. The general public will never comprehend hackers, or mathematicians, or scientists.
note to author of CBC article
by
dalamb
·
· Score: 1
For what it's worth, I sent the following note to the author of the CBC article:
Your article at http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/hack.html expresses the view that the news media are just using the term most understandable to their readers. In my opinion (having been a "hacker" at Carnegie-Mellon in the mid 1970's), the new media are responsible for the misuse of the term because they uncritically accepted the crackers' use of "hacker" in the first place. The claim of the need to keep misusing the word for "clarity" is disingenous, at best, and perhaps even irresponsible.
I am now a Professor of Computer Science, and have never broken into any computer system.
I'd hope that not too many of us bombard his mailbox, but decided I was a special case as a Canadian taxpayer (CBC is partly tax-funded) and in a position of minor authority on the subject.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd"
- Ian Lamb, age 3.5
This is only slightly off topic but im going to post it anyway because I AM CANADIAN!
Hey! I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader... and I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber, or own a dogsled... and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice. I have a Prime Minister, not a President. I speak english and french, NOT american, and I pronounce it 'ABOUT', NOT 'A BOOT'. I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing. DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation, AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL. A TOQUE IS A HAT, A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, AND IT IS PRONOUNCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!!! CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS! THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY! AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA! MY NAME IS JEFF!! AND I AM CANADIAN!!!!!!!!
We may have to find a new term.
by
Rimbo
·
· Score: 1
We cannot expect the rest of society to change their use of the word "hacker." What we can do is, now that we are gaining our own group identity, give the press a different term other than "hacker" for us to use. We'll never be able to whitewash the term "hacker."
Consider "negro," "colored," "black." Once they essentially had the same connotation as "nigger," African-Americans asked to be referred to as "African-Americans." Or something else.
A better analogy is that for the press to refer to crackers as hackers is no different from referring to a Chinese person as a "Jap." Because the truth is, the media shouldn't even be using the term "hacker." It's a derogatory term, even if it's one we happen to like. It depersonalizes us, and makes us a lower-than-normal social class.
So, let's see to it that when referring to ourselves to non-hackers, we don't use the term "hacker." (I mean, an african-american can refer to his own kind as "nigga," can't he/she?)
Re:We may have to find a new term.
by
ppanon
·
· Score: 1
If I had any moderator points, I would mark this reply up. I thought this was really funny. I sent a similar message to the article's author, but I was much heavier on the irony and sarcasm. You were joking, weren't you?
-- Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
"Hacker" is the correct term!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Look up the entymology some time. The word hacker has been in use on the MIT campus for close to 100 years.
It means "a person who operates a complex system in ways other than its designer's intent". At first it mainly referred to students who confused/abused the local bueracracy, who modified machines for practical jokes, or who just snuck into locked buildings through funny entrances.
All of those uses share the same spirit as the popular modern usage.
A "cracker", on the other hand, is a flat dry biscuit, often slightly salty.
It could also be used for someone who decrypts a message or password, but the field of computer intrusion is much broader than mere code-breaking!
Exactly. The term 'sailor' that you use is being used incorrectly (to my definition). A person cannot go sailing on a boat without sails, it's just that simple. But a person in the navy is called a sailor even though they probably have never been sailing in their life. This is most likey because the navy used to use the term 'sailor' as a person who works on a sailing ship. Now with the advent of internel combustion engines/nuclear power no new term has been adopted (except for maybe seaman). So real sailors, ie people who perform the task of sailing, resent their term being used improperly. Obviously 'sailor' has been around for hundreds of years meaning one thing. Now society has warped the meaning of it because of their own stupidity. This is exactly the same debate as 'Hackers vs. Crackers'. It's sad how the creators of a term can be isolated by the rest of the public and that their word's meaning is being warped beyond recognition.
--
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
...to distinguish those two words? >hacker: when you make another machine more secure on the net and find _yourself_ not able to penetrate into > cracker: when you make another attempt to hack that xXxXx computer, fail again and (un)fortunately get logged. Or locked? ---
-- ---
Naive inside, foolish outside...:)
The mis-meaning of "hacker" helped convict me
by
merlyn
·
· Score: 1
In my ongoing ongoing legal battle, one of the issues raised in front of the jury was my frequent self description as Just another Perl hacker. I believe the prosecution was able to use this fact, twisted as they wish, to convince the jury that I was basically evil. In fact, I meant nothing like that in my moniker, but I'm sure the jury wasn't able to distinguish that.
I was around in the days when a Hacker meant a person that broke into computer systems OR a computer enthusiast. A cracker meant a highly skilled person that broke software copy protection.
Well, the problem is Hacker sounds cooler then Cracker (wtf?), and there's more computer enthusiasts then there are computer 'vandals'. So the computer enthusiasts try to take the term for themselves push the 'real' hackers into the cracker realm. Face it, that's the truth.
"Hoson is tired now." Quiz: Where'd that come from?
The "computer educated community" (read: hackers/crackers whatever) wants to be able to use the word in public. They want to say "I am a Hacker" and have women swoon. Face it, Hacker will never equal Quarterback, deal with it.
-- Space Cadet
Grr! Another linguistic pet peeve!
by
gwalla
·
· Score: 1
Look up the entymology some time.
While we're on the topic of misused words, here's one confusion that doesn't show up very often but annoys the hell out of me when it does: etymology vs. entomology. Etymology is the derivation of words from earlier forms--most dictionaries show it at the end of each definition. Entomology is the study of insects.
A Cracker is someone who decrpyt ciphertext into plaintext. Or, a poor white person, as in "Let go eat at the Cracker Barrel"! {I believe that Cracker Barrel is owned by a black person.} A Hacker is someone who programs, creates, or reverse-engineer an item, ie. hardware or software
The prevailing attitude I see here is that of a bunch of shelterd, affluent, white people who have no real dealings with racism as it exists in America. It is painfully obvious that none of you have ever dealt with it and that your ideas of race relations are based on watching Chris Rock on TV.
Go look at a real ghetto. Talk to the residents. Read them the above post. See if they find it funny.
You say I am over-reacting because you absolutely have no idea what racism means or how much damage these "harmless jokes" do. I guess the current state of the world looks just dandy from those lilly-white suburbs and office parks.
OK. This is the most pathetic argument I have ever seen. Get off your damn lazy computer asses and do something good to benefit mankind or something...my word, get a grip!!
I think the main thing that gets hackers, in the non-malicious meaning, so upset, is that this is a group of people who are already misunderstood by the public in general. And then they misunderstand even the name they chose for themselves!
It's just a way of saying, look, it's bad enough you treat us like weirdos because we like sitting in front of a computer all day, exploring this virtual world of computer instructions. Just when we have this group of people where maybe we fit in, suddenly we're all told we're evil, immature lawbreakers with way too much time on our hands. And just because people in general misassociated a term with a certain behaviour.
It was pretty easy, I admit - from the outside, most people probably can't tell the difference, and really don't care. Apparently, even a good number of people on Slashdot don't know or care either. I remember trying to explain this to people in high school in 1991. Nobody listened, nobody cared (probably just thought I was even weirder) and I'm sure nobody remembers.
In any case, original usage and common usage have diverged. I just stick with "programmer" because people understand that and don't throw a hissy fit. Until computer games officially become the Next Great Evil anyway, then I'm screwed.
The institutions that have the general authority in the media, government, and education [...] have made their claim.
Here's another word that has somehow been perverted to have a different meaning than the original. It is amazing that the music, software, and motion picture industry have managed to persuade people to use the word `piracy' for unauthorised copying. Or maybe it is just depressing; few industries have more money and clout than these, so when they dictate a new use of the word, journalists are only too happy to use it.
Personally, I think it is great to play with language, but when you change words to make `copying' (whether authorised or not) some kind of Crimethink in the media, and hence in the minds of the general public, then it's too much.
Witness the "Money Programme" on BBC2 last Sunday (7th May), that unquestioned presented the music industry's claim that `piracy is ruining the music industry'!
-- ---
Premature complacency is the evil of all roots
Forget about hacker vs cracker...
by
insipid
·
· Score: 1
How about using hax0r instead of cracker d00dz. Hax0r sp3a| is so K3wl.
the "right" to self-naming
by
God!+Awful
·
· Score: 1
What I see here is the hackers wanting to "own" a word and control its usage. The hackers FAQ says that you aren't a hacker until other hackers recognize you as such. What gives them the right to control a word's usage?
One of the most abused rights is the "right" to self-naming. If you are a member of a cultural group, feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but you can't expect the rest of the world to go along with you no matter what.
Examples:
Prince, wierd symbol, "The Artist". Whatever... he's still Prince to me. If he wants to choose a pretentious name like "The Artist" then I'm not going to call him that.
In the same vein, if I change my name to the King of England, you're probably not going to recognize my sovereignty.
Sometimes, when a group advocates a certain name for themselves, they don't even have clear consensus from within the group. For example, using "African American" when "Black" is clearly the most descriptive word available. Try calling someone of Jamaican origin and African American; they sometimes get pissed off. I've even heard the term used to refer to people who live in Africa and are not American in any way, which is ludicrous.
Often, groups use names which have political connotations. "First Peoples" is more of a political statement than a name for a group.
In the abortion debate, both sides want to be pro-something. You can be pro-life or pro-choice. Or you can call your opponents anti-life or anti-choice or pro-death.
The media is better served to reject the obviously poltically-minded naming scheme and just call them pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
In the hacker vs. cracker situation, we have a case where the hackers want to prevent the crackers from calling themselves hackers (let's face it, the crackers probably do want to be known as hackers).
They have no particular right to do this. I have seen one instance where an organization (The Professional Engineers of Ontario) asserted their right to regulate the use of the word "engineer". However, the difference is that they are a trade organization with privileged legal status (and I still don't personally agree with their ability to do this).
::My opinions on the definitions:: -=Hacker=-:innocent individual acting upon personal oppinion by accessing DATA on other computer systems, this means that "Hackers" are just people looking and searching through DATA files on other peoples computers. These people are not criminals, just believers in intelectual freedom and who dislike the deception of hiding relevant information. -=Cracker=-:non-inocent person acting as a hacker, then damaging or changing the information they have found in a want that could alter on-line content or even copy-protection on software. "Crackers" goals are leaning toward anarchy of the digital world. To get free game"z" and program"z" from their "c00l warez friendz" and 0-day sites online. Also credit card fraud could fit into this category. -=Phreaker=-:person who commits illegal acts to get free services and merchandise by means of an electronic device. "Phreakers" use an assortment of techniques and devices commonly called *boxes(the star representing a color/function) to get phone calls, money from pop machines and pay-phones, credit card fraud by means of generating false cards, etc.
Real anonymous cowards don't know their ass form a hole in the ground, much less what a hacker is.
Real anonymous cowards don't know the difference between a hacker and a vampire, it seems.
If an anonymous coward were to somehow approach a real hacker and mouth off about their pet theory of what a hacker is, the hacker would respond "FOAD"
Slashdot Mirror
Just talking 'bout Shaft...ya damn right....
I wish everyone would get over the hacker/cracker definition thing. Language changes, it is dynamic. That's one of the cool things about English is that it is very adaptable. Gay used to mean happy. Even if you could convince everyone you know of the difference, once the media has gotten ahold of something you're fighting a juggernaught. Besides, do the people who don't know the difference REALLY matter?
In order to CRACK a machine, one must HACK at it first. And if you're hacking at a machine for several hours, you can still get busted with an attempt to break in. In this case, you haven't CRACKED anything but you got caught HACKING.
I think the terminology is loose enough, and as long as us geeks understand the true meaning between hacking and cracking, we could just let it slide.
The CBC actually covers tech issues quite accuratly and often reflects on the views of slashdot readers (not by name, but ideas presented here are often discussed on CBC news.)
:)
Hopefully they'll keep it up
...the scene has always called a...
Cracker = someone who removes copy protection from games..
Hacker = someone who enters other peoples computers via a modem (not necessarily damaging the system, but doing it in an un-authorised manner...)
only occasionally is a hacker someone who `really likes coding`...
and these definitions seem to be pretty prevalent outside the scene too... though i dont claim that there are no uk based dissenters from these definitions (i`d be interested to hear either way, actually).
Alex.
Can someone please explain to me why it matters so much if the mainstream press gets such an insignificant term wrong? There are far more atrocities of error everyday in the common press for far many more things (even computer tech). Worrying about a term that so few people care about is exactly whats wrong with most of the proponets of open-source/linux/today's computer flavour... the problem is mis-directed energy. I really miss the days when your choice of operating system was more on its merits than on a "sport's team" mentality; at least when people bickered then, if they lost the fight they would go back and try to improve their OS to match the other one. These days its nothing but rhetoric from every side of the fence. Blah.
F /...
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
I admit that the hacker vs. cracker debate has been a mild amusement to me for many years (most notably after picking up a copy of the New Hacker's Dictionary in my local library back when I was in high school, but I digress). I've often wondered why news organizations insist after what I assume to be constant derision to use the same incorrect (at least in my opinion) definition of a malicious computer user.
While it is refreshing to see someone actually explain to us why they use the term, it is disheartening to see that at least the CBC will continue to use "hacker" to refer to script kiddies, inept programmers and other low-life scum. At the very least, it is food for thought and affords us all an opportunity to now make more educated arguments in the hacker vs. cracker debate. Now that we know why the news organizations choose to use the words they do, we can make more informed complaint letters to them as well as dictionary authors.
Just the other day I was watching a report on the I love you *feature* (hehe) and I noticed that the Slashdot homepage was diplayed on the computer monitor behind the journalist. Go CBC! ;-)
You can kind of understand how the media ends up using the word HACKED since there are MANY pages out there (see: attrition.org cracked pages archive), that specifically say "YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED BY" or just the ever rampant "hacked" .gif (my apologies Unisys) staring you in the face when you look at it.
On an old school note, maybe its me, but I remember the commodore 64 days, when *games* were what was "cracked". (The infamous "cracked by eaglesoft, crack by the ball brothers," etc etc). Which at that time, it was the removal of copy protection. Maybe I'm just showing my age.
Dictionaries, although invaluable references, are always a little behind the way people really speak. Just as grammer can be viewed as prescriptive (telling, or prescribing what the correct way to speak is -- probably what you remember from school) or descriptive (describing how people ACTUALLY speak) so do dictionaries end up being a little prescriptive (what words ought to mean, what they USED to mean, what they historically meant) and a little descriptive (how people actually use words.)
English can be a little vague. What does love mean? I say I love strawberries (yum!) and my cat (frankly, I doubt so yummy -- all that fur) and although I use the SAME word we all know I mean differnt things. This is hardly an ideal situation.
A sensible paper, one might hope, would choose the more precise word (cracker when they mean "malicious slob who breaks into computer systems and causes damage" and hacker when they mean "talented computer enthusiast".
Just because the dictionarys haven't caught up with the vernacular is no reason to hold up the dictionaries as the "holy grail" of word knowledge.
Really interesting to see the way words change. Duh is now in the dictionary. But as far as this debate, it's just one culture (programmers) trying to distance themselves from another (script kiddies) while still maintaining a bit of counter-culture status.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I still think that they use the definitions wrong, hackers i agree with, but crackers should be left to burlgers to crack safes. Leave crackers a sa term for the 40's, the data safes of the 90's were best broken by hackers.
Plus it ties nicely into the cliche for a hacker.
A pale, underexercised
Too bad most cliches and stereotypes are no longer valid. just about anybody today is a hacker to some extent, weather directly or indirectly.computer nerd who, when not writing
code spends his time playing
AD&D, hacking both at imaginary creatures and
real computers.
if you disagree, think abount it the next time you play an MP3, watch a movie with DeCSS, or run that nifty program you got for "Free." (Don't deny it, almost everybody who owns a computer has pirated some peice of software from a relative.)
I sig therefore I am...
Yup, seems like a pretty safe bet. :)
But seriously. Of course we want to rewrite the dictionary -- how would the journalists like it if we kept calling them "lusers?" Thing is, they'd have an authority to fall back on: hey look, guys, we and our peers have another name for ourselves! We're not lusers!
We hackers just want the same, is all. Too much to ask?
Look, if you're going to get frosted over people who (to you) misuse the word "hacker", why on Earth would you turn right around and start misappropriating the word "cracker?" Cracker, as it relates to computers, never had the meaning that the annoyed hackers are trying to foist on it.
It's a little past time to realize that words change over time, and that the war on this word is lost, so I definitely don't have much energy for this sqabble. But please, if you're going to carry on with it, at least show a little consistency.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
...I'll keep doing my part to see that people use the correct terminology. For instance, when my parents asked me about the recent wave of hacker attacks, I quickly pointed out the difference between hacker and cracker. And so forth. Maybe I won't make a big impact, but *some* people will be able to acknowledge the difference.
That, and they won't get confused when I say that I'm trying to find a quick bologna/cheese/bacon sandwich hack....
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
Is it because term "cracker" could be easily misunderstood in the South (Georgia etc.)?
just a thought,
Biggy
I know all you guys think its really cool to call yourselvers "hackers" and pretend that you are some sort of antisocial wizards.
I know you are all wrapped up in the misunderstood genius syndrome.
I know you all think the world would be better off if it would just blindly accept your intellectual superiority and form a huge technocracy.
Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
"Hacker" is what 90% of the world uses to refer to a someone who gains improper access to a computer. Let it go. Get on with your lives.
Seriously. Right now -- close your web browser, get up, go outside, and go for a walk. If you are in Minnesota, take an umbrella.
Eh, didn't we agree that, in order to be inoffensive, all occurences of the word hacker would be substituted with cracker when the media meant cracker, on Slashdot?
Besides, how dare CBS question our use of the word? Don't they realize we are the powerelite? What does it matter what everybody else is using, what the major dictionaries are defining? The Jargon File is the final say in this matter. If it's not mentioned there, it must be incorrect.
I think we should hold a rally in Washington, the One Million Geek March, to protest the unfair treatment (you know, getting paid lots of money, doing what we love, being associated with people who crack into systems) of the geeks. We could all dress up like Jedi, and Jon Katz could talk about how....
sorry, I usually zone out when Jon starts writing...
Je ne parle pas francais.
... but I kind of like it. (Some of us southern boys take umbrage at "cracker", don't you know.)
A cracker is a saltine. A hacker is an axe murderer.
The press routinely uses the wrong language to describe its stories. Anything to make the headline scarier to grab more attention. A prefect example is ANY 'gun' story. The press will routinely say that an 'arsenal' of guns was found whenever cops find a large amount (for the press that usally means more than 2) of weapons. The correct term is actually 'armory' but that doesn't scare people since many have some sort of National Gaurd armory near their town. People are used to the term armory. An armory is where weapons are stored, an arsenal is where they are manufactured. Another example is using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'. They are different items. In general just about all modern (post Korean war) weapons now use magazines to hold their rounds. But again, a magazine is newsweek or time, a clip is not as familier of an item.
Is OOG the first Slashdot user to have his own fan club?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
MIT is famous for it's constant barrage of practical jokes around campus. These usually range from putting a police car on the top of one of the buildings to Smiley Faces placed at strategic points. These jokes are referred to as 'hacks', and to my knowledge, always have been.
The MIT Hack Gallery is here:
http://hacks.mit.edu/Gallery.html
There's some pretty creative stuff in there, and most of the hacks follow a strict "Code of Ethics" guideline, and usually anything that violates the code wouldn't be considered a hack. (A tip of the hat to the CORRECT usage of the word.)
The page gets it right when it says:
"Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking")."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I think you've got it backwards. Seems like the article is a great explanation of why the "hacker" is used to connote malicious computer vandals. Words mean what people think they mean. Most people think "hacker" means "computer vandal". Some are aware of its other meaning "computer enthusiast/expert". I can jump up and down and scream that fire is "hot cockleorum", but that doesn't mean anybody else has to agree with me. I've always thought this is a pretty ridiculous debate...English (and, likely, many other languages) is not subject to the delicate sensibilities of its users.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
First, there are no such things as "true meanings." Meaning in language is created when reference is secured. Even among us, saying that "a hacker is in the system" quite reliably constructs a consistent meaning. (Let's leave Quine, Ayers, and Putnam out of all this for now, you language philosphers. If I hear about twin earth, I'll plotz.)
The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries. At this point, the geek community may as well say that the word "hacker" refers to white-tufted thrush, and that the appropriate term is "pendejo," for all the good it will do. The institutions that have the general authority to determine meaning in media, government, and education - the dictionary writers (who fill the void left by the absence of the sorts of language academies that France and Spain use) - have made their claim.
Language is created by usage. Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful, unless there is some real-world social or political tumult associated with it. If there is a civil-rights movement for hackers, perhaps the language about it will come under greater scrutiny. (Of course, that means, that if the public ended up meaning by 'hacker' what some folks here want them to mean by 'hacker,' the dictionary writers will eventually follow suit. I don't see any mechanism for that to happen - there isn't enough motivation on the part of the public.)
On another level, I think it is misguided to completely toss out the Hollywood hacker media fantasy. Of course there aren't teen-model wunderkind hackers rollerblading around the city. Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics. But the mediated image of the hacker does reveal a sort of public anxiety that so much of our infrastructure is now opaque to all but those with the technological expertise to decode it. It is a testimony to our (we being high-tech cognoscenti of different stripes) status, and the general public awe that it inspires. We should, if not embrace the glamorized image, at least be somewhat pleased that we can inspire it.
So get over it. The votes have been counted. Hacker means what it means. Positive and negative. Don't expect it to make sense, people. It's English. Our noses "run" and our feet "smell". "Cleave" is a word with two synonymns that are antonymns of each other.
Take a deep breath, and relax. And don't bother petitioning dictionary publishers. They just report common usage, they don't define it.
Pragmatist? Sure, if it works.
So the media would much rather use their own language to describe these groups than use the terms described in the proffesional jargon. Instead of going by what computer experts agree on, they'd rather listen to other journalists.
In that case, let's stop calling Podiatrists by their professional given name. Let's instead call them Foot Fetishists, since it is more obvious to the layman what they are about (who knows what a podiatrist is, anyway?). That's pretty much the same thing as calling hackers crackers and vice versa. Let's also call Journalists Buffoons, especially the non-technical who decide they are more qualified to cover hi-tech topics than the professionals to whom this is bread and butter.
The hackers have been been cracked by hacks.
Get even refer to all journalists as hacks.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
There are, as Ayn Rand pointed out, some words that have two meanings illegitimately packed into one. People routinely, for example, equate ethic with altruism on a fairly regular basis, assuming that ethical behavior is necessesarily other-regarding.
"Hacker" may well be one of those terms, given the majority's use of it, but it's hard to fight a word that has been so entrenched. Perhaps the most that can be done is make people aware that hacker has other, more benevolent, meanings.
Recently on GeekPress:
Private eyes in the sky
When (not actually) in Rome
Switches Raise Prospects for Tiny Technology
Honey, the dot-com riches are all mine
Music can be brought to life by humming
Sleeping on the Job Earns Points and Kudos
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
So, the problem is, the reaction to the "stealing" of hacker was to coin a new word. Maybe instead we should be pushing existing words, like "vandal" or "marauder". Or maybe we should just accept the complete and total ambiguity of the word, and let context decide for us, the way we do with most words in English.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
One does not, after all, state a definition for common words like "golfer", "policeman", or "beer"; that one states a definition indicates that one believes the word to need defining. ("The driver had been drinking 'beer', an alcoholic beverage made from fermented barley spiced with hops.")
Therefore, to say that they rely on the common parlance for the meaning of "hacker" is disingenuous. They might as well say "This Web vandalism is just another of the recent works of so-called 'crackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers." Doing this would serve the cause of education -- improving, rather than damaging, the common parlance -- and further would avoid pissing off hackers.
If Oxford, et al won't list a cracker as a malicious son-of-a-bitch with a script, surely they could fit fucker -- which already has a long historical meaning of being a wankerous person -- around the kind of moron who screws up a computer or network.
Of course, the trick is getting news services to print the word in it's new context. (Yes, I'm kidding.)
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
One of the definitions given for "hack" in the Hacker's dictionary reffers to a "prank" (not necissarily computer related, but usually technical) (that's how I interpreted the deffinition, at least). So why wouldn't a computer prank (altering web sites, denial of service) be called hacks, and a person who performs these hacks be called a Hacker?
it doesnt work that way. people give you a name, and you grow into it. thats how it operates
it's not like Black Sabbath got up in the morning and said "hey, we'll call this Metal". no. the others chose it, and they took the word and made mean something new. of course the counterargument is that spears does get up every day saying "hey, i think i'll make shit today" but thats another story.
see also punk (which means male boytoy and young elephant), funk, pirate, and web squatter.
*shrug*. just move on and bend the definition. after all, when you say punk, we dont think elephant anymore.
shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
Let's see, I'm a hacker in the literary sense: the whole great works of literature thing doesn't appeal to me, just writing what I like. Now computers, I'm a marginal hacker: I'm working on my skills, can do some fixing and coding when needed, but I'm not at the point where you would want me coding the flight control systems for the jetliner you take when you fly off to destinations mundane. Now, I know a few people who are crackers, and who were called hackers by those who knew less. However, these people are also hackers as they do have some coding skills. However, I have also seen the iloveyou virus, which, though the media purports was written by a hacker, was writen by a script kiddee.
What does all this mean? I think it means that we need to start coining a few new terms for those with a bit of knowledge of computer systems, or prehaps a new term for me and my fellow literary intepts. Or maybe a new spelling for hacker in the programming/computer enthusiast meaning, Haquer perhaps?
Anyways, all this can lead to confusion.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Sorry, but 99 percent of the general public thinks a hacker is someone who steals secrets and trashes computers. That's not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. You may as well give up. You sound like the people who complain because they can't use the word gay to mean happy anymore. The meanings changed. Deal with it.
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
In anycase, I have seen Chinese newspapers translate "hacker" homonymously as "hei ke". Literally this means a "black visitor", thief or assasin. A very apt translation if you ask me. :-)
I agree.
I think it's silly for people to try to clarify the difference between hacker and cracker to people who don't know the differene between a hard drive and a CPU.
Why bother? People have chosen to use hacker to describe computer people who do bad things. Give up people! Who cares? They don't understand the distinction between yahoo and netscape!
Mike
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
To gain an entry in the OED, the researchers need to demonstrate a minimum of TWELVE published uses of the word with its new definition over a period of not less than FIVE years. On identifying this, an entry into the OED is made. Thus, the definition of a hacker in its new, controversial form has appeared because that is the way many people define it. This is the process of linguistic evolution, and it is constant and unstoppable.
To decry such a natural process is pointless, and should put you in mind of your grandparents complaining about how "they've hijacked the word 'gay' no it doesn't mean happy any more no it's disgusting isn't it?". There is nothing anyone can do about the redefinition of 'hacker' though. It will, from now on, always have the dual meaning, and the media feel entirely justified in using it as it is in the dictionary, as well as being a commonly accepted term by 400 million people. If you wish to help the OED correctly define 'cracker' then maybe you could supply them with a series of published articles spanning five years. Then it would appear in a later edition.
The only other potential solution is to find a new word for 'hacker' (non-malicious) meaning, and then use 'hacker' the same as the rest of the English-speaking world do, and then this thread will go away forever.
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
Wow, my second /. post in one day. When I was coming up, a hacker was a) a person who was really good with computers, someone who really knew the ins and outs. b) Someone who used that knowledge to break into other computers in order to learn more about them. A cracker on the other hand (in computer speak at least) was a person who defeated copy protection in commercial/shareware software, ie, your key generators or your patch to remove the nag screen. This people were skilled themselves (how many people still know assembly? I don't). These are my definitions today and I don't really care how else they are used. I don't understand why people get so upset. A 13 year old kid (just cause you are 13 don't mean you aren't good, this is just an example) who runs a script to DOS you in my opinion is just a low-skilled bad hacker. If he "cracks" some program, he is a higher skilled hacker (good or bad, depends on if he did it for knowledge). If the same kid is writing kernel patches, he is a highly skilled good hacker. Anyway thats my opinion take it for what its worth.
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the terms incorrectly.
According to the Webster's and New Oxford dictionaries, they aren't using the terms incorrectly.
Hacker... cracker... whatever... whining about the difference seems anal retentive. (this is going to cost me karma points, I'm sure)
What if Robert T. Morris has released an internet worm today instead of way back in 1988? Would he have received the same punishment today as he did back then?
For example, saying something is 'gay', meaning stupid, a lot of people will say is utterly wrong because it comes from homophobic people using it. It's not wrong because it was used by homophobic people and has since come into common slang for 'stupid' or 'silly' and is completly unrelated to homosexuals.. Of course, you still shouldn't use it simply because it offends some people.
A more interesting example is the word 'black' vs. 'negro'. Black was originally an offensive term used for Africans. In order to be polite people started using 'negro' and 'nigger'. Of course, ironically, the term negro became impolite (well, downright offensive, really) and so 'black' came back into style. (And of course 'African-American' for those PC types).
It just goes to show. A word only means what the majority of people think it means...
OK, kids, anyone who's been on the scene longer than Linux kjnows the real scoop:
A hacker is someone who gets inside and groks systems. This is usually done with permission and to the benefit of the system, but not always. There are bad hackers and good hackers. Get over it.
A cracker is someone who breaks software copy protection. Period, the end. Most of them are pretty pissed at being lumped in with virus writers and "skript kiddeez".
The "hacker" vs. "cracker" debate is an excuse to co-opt language for political ends. I have little patience for political revisionism of common usage, -especially- when the revision is built on an ignorance of our own past.
SoupIsGood Food
True, nobody owns the words "cracker" or "hacker", and nobody can make anyone else use one word instead of the other. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that people who use the word "hackers" instead of "crackers" sound like fucking idiots to people who have a fucking clue. Stupid newbies who think they know everything and moronic reporters make me physically sick. Maybe one day we'll have something like in the matrix, where you can almost instantly educate someone about something if they want to learn it. Until then, we're going to have to deal with these fucking idiots.
Very, very few people in this community really care about hacker vs cracker. It's become one of those issues that is trendy to pull out when someone wants to establish their "hacker credentials". "Yeah, I really hate that the media uses cracker, too".
Please. This issue is dead. It always was dead. It always was a stupid issue.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Dictionary.com defines whippersnapper as "A person regarded as insignificant and pretentious." Is this not how hackers were originally viewed?
>The noun cracker was coined by hackers around 1985, according to MIT Press,
>"in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker."
This is the problem. Games/apps were cracked by crackers long before these hackers "invented" the word.
Ironic the Candians came up with this article. What do they call Eskimos? The Inuit. Why? Because that's what the Inuit call themselves.
I'm from London. I hate it when Americans refer to me as British. I am not British. The only pople I've met that call themselves British are 1) Irish Prostestants 2) members of the British National Party. I'm English. Please refer to my tribe by it's own name.
It is interesting to know that there is at least some sort of reason that media would not use the term "cracker". However, it seems to me that most journalist stampede to the term "hacker" just because someone else used it first. And the argument about the dictionaries defining a hacker as one who breaks security in addition to "computer enthusiast" is shady. After all, many dictionaries use the MEDIA as a source for their definitions. "We don't set trends but follow them" indeed.
It would be an interesting (if unlikely) experiment to have several newspapers start using the term "Cracker" instead of "Hacker" and see what comes of it. I'll not hold my breath, however.
The media seems to think we hackers should shut up and stop arguing because "the dictionary has spoken". Why should we do that? As at least one poster has stated, most jounalists would certain object to being called "opinion-mongers" for example. So why should all hackers have to put up with the derogatory use of the term when there is a perfectly good term for lawbreakers (like "vandals" or "crackers"). Then there is the argument "language is dynamic and changes all the time. You should bite the bullet and accept it" cuts both ways. Both sides can use the same argument.
Then again, there will always be some term to debate about endlessly and there will always have people using opposing monologues.
I'll watch the debate as it proceeds and continue to use the "correct" term and try to convince others to use it as well. I'll not cry foul too loudly if we all get shouted down, though.
Such is life.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Sometimes I forget myself. People ask me why I look so tired (I'm up in the day because I have a JOB). My instant thought is maybe they can help me with whatever problem I was working on the night before, so I go into a long winded explaination. About half way through, I see the glazed over faces, and finish with a half-hearted "umm . . . hacking code"
The alternative is when you DO finish something neat, and you're all happy-like and want to show it off. Usually to people who don't care. Being a geek is an odd lifestyle. It's a wonder I have any friends left.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I meant, "Yeah, I really hate that the media uses hacker, too"... well, you know what I meant.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If this is something seen as 'news worthy' I really need to stay away from Slashdot. Grow up and use that effort to do some thing worth while, not argue relentlessly over the meaning of a damn word.... Stuff that matters my as$!
I tend to avoid both buzzwords. Programmers, developers and network security experts are better terms than hackers, with appropriate adjectives. Likewise, you can describe the bad guys as intruders and attackers.
Black and white hats (gray ones too, I guess) are alternatives I also shun.
--Louis
I did, here :)
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Everybody knows that France has faced a similar problem for years. The French People keep using English words like "internet" and "computer," which goes against their policy of having a Perfect Language.
Thank goodness somebody found a solution. Simply declare the language dead and all is solved.
> Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics.
This is actually kind of the heart of the debate, isn't it?
Cracking usually doesn't involve 3d imagery.
Hacking can. Follow this example.
If I am a special-effects wizard, working on production film for a movie, then I am hacking on the FX. A visually impresive explosion might be an exemplary hack, using definitions 1-6 of "hacker", and 2,4 of "hack" (www.jargon.org).
Also possibly using 8 of hack, if I enjoy playing NetHack in my spare time while the computer is rendering the frames (which I do/would). (www.nethack.org)
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
You can't mean this! It's...the...end of...life as...we know it!
Help me!
(Falls over dead)
So for me, back when Commodore ruled supreme and no laws dealt specifically with computer games, Cracker = that guy who cracked the game.
:).
So the cracker/hacker thing always made sense - the guy had to crack the game like you crack a safe. Then I grew up
On a side note, I always thought hacker was appropriate for programmers, because all we're doing is writing up code and hoping it compiles. At least I always felt like a cheap hack....writing Galaga in BASIC...or a side scroller with a flying spoon.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
For this post I am defining a Hacker as someone with great skill with computers.
Quote from media: A hacker or hackers in the Phillipines may be behind the ILUVYOU virus.
Ignoring the fact that they are wrong in calling the ILUVYOU trojen a 'virus', the use of hacker is correct, because you can replace 'Hacker' with the phrase 'someone with great computer skill'.
Wrong: Hackers break into computer systems illegally
Right: A Hacker illegally entered a top secret computer system today.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People define words. Dictionaries merely document the definitions as best they can. The article says that cracker is not in mainstream English yet, but "being defined as a specific type of hacker in one respected dictionary is a start."
This is wrong. For the term to show up in a large general purpose dictionary, the meaning must already be (or have been) in mainstream use.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
Some people have suggested vandal, which is fine since they're all dead and won't write any e-mail complaints to the CBC.
Umm... what about those of us who are University of Idaho Vandals?? Hmmm?? I would think that among people currently at my graduate alma mater, the people at the CSDS might have just as many (valid) issues with "vandal" being used as we in the obsessive-compulsive programmer community do with "hacker".
Personally, I don't see any good reason not to use "cracker". Applying a term that is basically a racial epithet for "poor white trash" to a different class of trash entirely seems ironically appropriate; perhaps it's actually not-so ironic -- has anyone done a study to determine how many system intruders grow up in environments conducive to being bereft of both values and motivation?
My opinion only, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
... that one obsolete medium (the CBC) is using another obsolete medium (dead-tree editions of dictionarys) to defend their isiotic and improper use of terminology.
I have, at home, a dead-tree dictionary that defines "computer" along the lines of "a person whos job it is to do complex mathematical computations", with no mention of transistors, microchips, or silicon.
If *I* relied on dead-tree format references for MY language skills, how then, would I describe this box sitting on my desk?
john
Imagine all the people...
Hey..no-one likes a `me too` post :)
What do these four words have in common?
This is about name/word association. There are good and bad hackers, just like there are good and bad muslims, good and bad jews, and good and bad christians. Remember when muslims are associated with terrorists? christians as abortionist murderers? jews as money-grubbers? And you wonder why hackers are ticked when they are associated as computer systems breakers??!!!!
Like it or not, the media plays a role in name associations, good or bad. Every group of people named in a dictionary has to stand up and preserve the integrity of their name. Hackers are talented computer users. They can use their ability in a positive way or a negative way. I am appalled when the media tarnish a name of a group (by always focusing on the negative aspects of hacking) and refuse to hold themselves responsible for it. We have to put our foot down!
Hasdi
From the desk of your local network affilliate:
Authorities in the Philippines today arrested what experts are calling a "three one three three seven." The three one three three seven is believed to have written a virus that exploited poor security in a popular email program.
And now back to your regularly scheduled movie, "Sneakers" with Dan Ackroyd.
Sheesh.
Got Rhinos?
Why don't the real hackers just "make up", or better yet, hack up, patch or port the word "hacker" and "hack" into a new word?
Seriously, mix it up a bit, come up with some word, NO ONE could dispute.
How do you spell pronouce "Hack" or "Hacker" in say latin? Let's use that, or if that sucks, what is hacker backwards in german?
It is a lost cause to fight for the word "hacker", it could mean a ton of things
cracker
axe chopper
murder
washed up writer
computer expert
some that plays nethack a lot
Come on, lets get somthing new. What is (("hacker" in binary) x (3.16 in binary), multiped by 42) then converted back to ascii and translated to russian? We use that word, and put it under the GPL.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
who cares... really. this is a lost battle.
The word hacker for a computer criminal is now totally entrenched both in use by the media and by ordinary people. I tend to use it myself as well. Why not just leave it that way and come up with a new word for the people that are computer enthusiasts/experts. It would have a much greater chance of being adopted and would leave us with two distinct words.
I have to say that I don't really like the term 'Nerd' and that fact that it is used prominently on the slashdot web pages. It is generally associated with people who are sad and have no life which is not something I like to think of myself as being.
I think it is an entirely British expression and seems to be limited to some universities but when I was at university we were always called 'spods'. The meaning was as much that of a nerd as a hacker but depending on the context, there were times when I was refered to as a spod and felt that it was something to be prowd of rather than an insult (which nerd always would be).
Worse. Much worse. Especially if it was as virulent as his original worm (ie: if similar security holes were available today).
Unlike the speed of ILOVEYOU (which spread mostly due to user stupidity, yet still managed to make front page news the world over in less than 24 hours and cause lots of damage), morris worm would have taken much less time, and been much harder to get rid of.
Although, the morris worm couldn't have been written by a 12 year old.. it was actually REALLY COOL.
As long as hackers will call themselves hackers, what chance do you have of getting the new name adopted? Why doesn't the hacker-as-in-code-hacker-not-malicious-hacker community, which seems to be well represented on /., agree on a new name for *themselves*?
At the very least you would stand a better chance if you didn't choose a name that didn't have a well established meaning in the hacker-as-in-malicious community, where "cracking" means disabling copy protection / manual lookup passwords in commercial programs... But I guess it's not well seen to show respect for anyone who is not showing the slashdotically-correct behaviors and opinions.
I know nothing of what I wrote here is be new, but don't blame me, blame /. for stiring up this old story every several weeks... This is not a defense or apology of what hackers-as-in-malicious do, I consider myself a hacker-as-in-code-hacker and my point is that this whole this-is-my-name-find-yourself-another thing is so pointless!
I felt that the article lost a lot to credibility when the author failed to know even what a script kiddie was. Holisticly, I got the impression that there was a constant switch between about 3 different dictionaries to help back the overall theme. As as stated in earlier posts, the dictionary makers don't just sit around and make up new words, it goes by what a large percentage of the population actually use. Admittibly, hacker/cracker/script kiddie are jargon terms(right now). But, the author tries to justify the use of 'hacker' to describe just about every computer event under the sun so that people are not confused. To me, that's false logic; using incorrect terms to describe an event actually introduces more confusion. When ever I read an article that states something about a 'hacker' I always have to actually read the entire article to figure out what they really mean by that. It's like trying to talk about an operating system but without being able to specify what operating system you're talking about outside of sentance context. Next time you talk about windows, mac OS, Linux or any Unix varient just refer to them as 'the operating system' because who needs to be more specific than that?
I liked the insights Shewchuk had into the use of the words in language, and how some of the top language reference sources treat the words. I am not a hacker, nor a cracker, nor a crackpot for that matter! But I do have some issues with something that was said in the article.
Shewchuk talked about this manual on writing, and a particular point that the CBC has since adopted. He quoted Michael Enright as saying "We do not follow the lead in accepting new words and phrases." That sounds all well and good, but isn't it becoming more and more clear to people that this isn't a new term? That the distinction that has been made has been there for over a decade? In a media dominated society, it seems clear to me that if the distinction between hacker and cracker is going to be made more clear to the world at large, then the media should play an important role in it. Where else will the populus at large hear the terms being used interchangably yet accurately? How many people in this world will know enough to ask their hacker friend or relative to explain the difference, then remember it a month later?
People in this world, including a portion of /. readers pride themselves on being hackers, and not because of the malicious damage that they can do, but because of the way they can take new technology and make it work for them. The kinds of things that hackers do is amazing to most of the world, and hackers should be able to proudly state "I am a hacker!" without worrying that his or her community will look at them, scared that he or she will wipe out their credit history if they don't get invited to the weekend barbeque.
I aspire to one day know enough to be considered a hacker. If I never break into NASA or some .gov or .mil server, I still want to be a hacker. I, on the other hand, never want to be a cracker, nor would I wish to be associated to those derivative individuals who are known as crackers simply because the world didn't want one more distinction to learn.
"I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure..."
I'm pleased that the referenced, and even quoted, The New Hacker's Dictionary/Jargon File. The only point I think they missed is that there is a perception among the hacker community that the word had its positive connotations first. The negative association with what we call "crackers" appeared later. We have been struggling against the careless aggregation of hackers and crackers lest we, the hackers, be mistaken for them, the crackers, in the public's mind.
We might have better luck teaching the press the term script kiddies and the reasons why we use it. I think even some of the crackers out there hold the script kiddies in contempt.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Well then, the way to fix it is to get the word into the OED. They seem to want references of the word "Cracker" over the past five years (Probably in a dead tree medium). If you're so ticked off about it, why don't you find dead tree uses of Cracker and send them off to the OED?
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Not to mention the number of times the killer "used a semiautomatic pistol".
One of these days, ask a firearms-uninformed person (including your average reporter) what a semiautomatic pistol is. They have no idea, but it has the word "automatic" in it and we all know that fully-automatic weapons are illegal for most people in the US, right? So, semiautomatic weapons must be kind of the same thing, right? They're like machine guns, right?
A few others:
Armor-piercing ("cop killer") bullets -- must be more deadly than hollow points, right? I mean they're ARMOR PIERCING.
9 millimeter -- Often used in conjunction with "semiautomatic" to sound technical and scary. Notice how rarely reporters say, "revolver". Why? Because it makes you think of old westerns more than our modern, high-tech, scary world.
Accidental Shooting -- No such thing. You put your finger on the trigger, you pull it, the gun goes off. See also: "The gun just went off!" and "Shot himself in the head while cleaning the gun" -- better known as "Suicide, but we can't tell the insurance company that."
Assault Weapon -- If you're using it to assault someone, what else would you call it?
I have been contemplating marketing a new line of crackers. I would name them Hackers(tm). All of my commercial spots would revolve around the obvious misnaming of the snack food.
Jim: Want some Hackers(tm)?
John: Wait! These are crackers!
Jim: No, look, the box says Hackers(tm)!
John: It's obviously wrong, these are crackers!
Hehehe. Even if you guys don't think it's funny, I laugh quite a bit at my ideas. Hehehe.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Now, if you want to see the media to use the terms correctly, then it seems to me that a letter writing campaign is in order.
Everytime some hack hacks out a story using hacker instead of cracker, write them a letter, preferably by email.
eventually they will cave . . .IMHO
Later . . . . . . WebBug
Who says we have to wait for the public to start using our term? Let me be the first to propose that we form a coalition of l33t cr@x0rs and break into Oxford's dictionary archives and change the terms to the correct usage.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The issue wouldn't be so hotly contested if the word did not have two, diametrically opposed meanings. The equivalent is to take any other word normally used to describe a person, perhaps even a term of honor and respect such as in this case, and reuse it as an insult. I doubt that journalists would idly stand by if, due to changes in the common vernacular, the word journalist was also used for "scum-sucking bottom feeder". The same principle holds true here. Anyone who is refered to as a hacker anymore is summarily insulted as although both definitions are supported their usage is so similiar that they are easily confused. I doubt I'd try to put cheese on Cletus (although you never know...) when you asked me about how I like my crackers, but a cracker and a hacker are both people who deal with computers to a large degree the rest of the distinction is on how they use them. If it was just the wrong term it would be tolerable, but to be insulted almost daily is something that ought to be changed.
Perl programmers aside, I think the problem is that programmers and computer techies have never liked context sensitivity.
'Hacker' is context sensitive. It means different things at different times to different people. Most English words are like. This makes it easier to express yourself accurately, not harder.
In the UK, hacker has long meant someone who hacks into computer systems. Because of the (more US based) meaning of 'skilled, unorthodox programmer' it has _two_ meanings. Wow.
'I was up all night rebuilding the mail server after some hacker trashed it' - can you guess what meaning is in use here?
'It was a fun company to work for, they had some pretty smart hackers there' - how about now?
Is it really so difficult that we must must must have a special word?
Yes, the phrase ' I think of myself as a hacker ' on its own might be ambiguous. But, in real life you simply would never get that phrase on its own. A live conversation would allow an unsure listener to ask what meaning the speaker intended. A written email or letter would never simply be that phrase all on it's own.
-----
We've got to reverse the language subversion foisted off on us by the Leaders of Our Community (or whatever.)
'Cracker' historically is defined as someone who enjoys defeating the copy protection in copy-protected games (also known as "cracking" them.)
If you don't like your term 'Hacker' being redefined to mean 'someone who illegally breaks into computer systems' then you should stop trying to redefine somebody else's term ('Cracker') in the same fashion.
ESR is as guilty of this as anybody. I find it deplorable that an extreme zealot like him has custodianship of the 'Jargon File.' In effect, having someone like him involved just reduces the relevance of the aforementioned 'file.'
>If that's the only definition of computer that
>your dictionary gives, the it's a bad dictionary.
It's not a BAD dictionary by any means, it's an edition of the Oxford dictionary of the English Language. But it's an OLD dictionary, given to me by my grandfather and dating from the '30s as I recall.
>Some hackers feel that their definition of hacker
>is somehow more valid than a newspaper's
>definition of hacker, simply because they belong
>to the group described
No, the journalist's definition is wrong because they display a complete ignorance of the meaning and history of the word. They don't bother to check the jargon file OR the history of the word.
Have you ever read Stephen Levy's "Hackers"? If you had, you'd know that the word originally didn't apply to computer work AT ALL. It came in to use at MIT's model railroading club. And even when it DID move into the computer field, it still only had positive connotations.
It wasn't until some idiot in the mass media who had no comprehension of the culture he was describing needed a buzzword to scare the unwashed masses that hacker was equated to cracker. The negative connotations of hacker are a completely manuefactured fiction of tabloid-level journalism.
If you HAVEN'T read Levy's book, I suggest you do. He did quite a good job of chronicleing the hacker culture, and the entemology of the word "hacker". And beyond it's value as a history text, it's a fascinating chronicle in of itself.
john
Imagine all the people...
There is no war to be won or lost. "Hacker" (used in the positive sense) may never gain mainstream acceptance, but it can have a long and healthy life as a slang expression. Thirty years ago, the the slang word "cool" was popular, and it is popular today. Most of you reading this have used it. But after all that time and usage it is still slang, unofficial. I have never heard a news anchor use "cool" other than to refer to temperature. For a while, "bad" (meaning good) was a popular expression, precisely because it was opposite to mainstream usage.
It doesn't matter what the news organizations do. "Hacker", in the good sense, is here to stay. The reason is simple: the word "programmer" is just plain un-sexy.
Who here remembers when a cracker was someone who broke copy protection? That's what i think of whenever i see a reference to "crackers." Well, either that or the round salty snacks.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Isn't it?
It's always amazed me how the same people who get all concerned about journalists using the word hacker when they mean cracker, tell RMS to get over it in regards to the whole Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing. Is this just my imagination, or are these two distinct groups of people.
It's just a connotation versus denotation thing. The other day, I saw that a friend of mine got a new bike, so I said, "So you finally got your new bike, huh?" He said, "Dude, it's not a bike, it's a Colnago!" The connotation was totally lost on me. As far as I was concerned, it was a bike. The same is true for the public with hacker vs. cracker. The distinction is unimportant to the general public, just like the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux is unimportant to most people who use it. The only time when this really becomes important is when you are having a technical conversation with someone in a particular area of expertise.
When my girlfriend or family ask me what I do at work, I might tell them that I work with UNIX, but when an employer or co-worker ask me I might tell them I work with IRIX. In both cases I refer to the same thing, but in one, I am being more specific. For this reason, if I was writing a story for the New York Times, I would probably use the word hacker. If I was writing for slashdot, I would use the word cracker. In neither case would I be wrong.
I agree!
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How come when people of color complain about a descriptive term, no matter how common it is (eg. black vs. African American), the media immediately begins to use the suggested alternative term? Or people with disabilities - they are no longer "handicapped", they are "physically challenged". They don't check a dictionary before proceeding. They don't check for common usage. They do it to appease the special interests.
If the media is willing to change terminology for special interest groups, why can't they change terminology for the hackers out there? I am offended when the term Hacker is used to describe a crack or an act of vandalism.
Additionally, the "hack" in "Hacker" is probably derived from the "hacking of wood" definition. A wood hacker hacks apart the wood, than builds something useful with it. A computer hacker hacks apart code, than builds something useful with it.
"Cracker", in my definition, is a subset of the "Hacker" community. It is someone who hacks apart code, then exploits it. Same skill sets, different objectives.
Are a locksmith and a thief synonymous? Both know how to pick a lock. Both are familiar with the inner workings of a tumbler. However, one uses that knowledge to construct new locks, better locks, the other exploits the knowledge for personal gain.
And, in reference to the actual article, a "hack" is a type of journalist. Hence, by the logic of the author, a truly crappy article can be attributed to a journalist, even though journalists may refer to it as being written by a hack.
Hacker and Cracker are used to differentiate between motives and goals. The skill set may be the same, but the objective is what matters.
-NYFreddie
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
Geez. Ever since I had a little C=64 the term "Cracker" has ALWAYS referred to an individual who writes "cracks" for programs that have copy protection routines.
"Hacker" is a person who infiltrates systems and/or causes damage to said system
"Phreaker" is a person who uses knowledge of the phone system to illegally access it for free phone use.
"Slacker" is any slash-dotter wannabe who can't figure out what the difference is!!!
Really, "Hacker" is the proper term to use... they "hack" into systems. A "Cracker" does not infiltrate systems, not at all. Go out on the web and look up "cracks" - they have NOTHING to do with computer security!! However, a person could be BOTH a hacker AND a cracker.
OK, a hacker is a computer programmer -- they are more 31337 than those who breach network/system security ("crackers"). Crackers are a much smarter and creative lot than those who deface websites, so those folks are called "script kiddies".
At some point, you just have to give up and accept multiple definitions. What do you call a person who does not break security measures and writes "cracks" to uncripple certain software titles? How many derogatory terms are there for white people other than "cracker"?
A "true" hacker can call themselves a "hacker" all day if they want, but don't be surprised if someone gets the wrong idea. When I came in to work in a good mood, I could have run around in the office telling everyone that I was "gay", but again, there's the problem of someone getting the wrong idea.
Give it up, and get over it. Thank you.
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Mathematicians cringe when people use "precise" in place of "accurate", and vice-versa. How about "tidal wave" for "tsunami", "venue" in any non-legal context, and "assault weapon" for anything that even remotely looks like a modern military assault rifle.
You can't expect better treatment for what are, after all, slang terms.
Regarding dictionaries, I gave up on them when they started describing "anxious" and "eager" as synonymous.
--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
Identifying someone as a "script kiddie" is prejorative, no one wants to be branded with that tag, even if you aren't sure what it means it doesn't sound good. "Pety theif" would be better then "theif" actually as it has a cheapness to it
The use of less romanticized words might actually have a bit of a chilling effect.
If the media insists on calling them hackers, and the mainstream culture thinks of hackers as crackers, why not just make a new word to describe all smart computer geek types, and let them have hacker denote cracker?
I do have to admit, when I think of hacker, the first thing that comes to mind is the cracker/phreaker/skript kiddie type. THEN I think of all my friends, the ethical crackers, the linux geeks, etc. And I've been online as a computer geek for 8 years. It's a perception that is carved in stone.
Incidentally, there is some romanticism to the hacker idea. Hackers (as we call them crackers) are like pirates... and old west outlaws. And vampires. Pirates were bad people. They killed, raped, maimed, stole. But people like that image. They secretly wish they could have been a pirate. It was bad, evil, and romanticised as being exciting and fun. The hacker is the modern pirate, and I suspect 200 years from now, the hacker genre will be the same as the pirate or old west outlaw genre is today. The romanticised bad guy that people want to be but don't want to admit to wanting it.
Likewise, there isn't much in the pirate genre that's realistic or historically accurate. Do you think "Arrr, Matey! Walk the plank!" does any justice to who pirates really were? It's the same with the Hacker paradigm. It's unrealistic, but people want it that way. There's nothing to fantisize about when you know that most hackers do nothing but sit around staring at driver source codes to get their new USB mouse to work. There's nothing exciting about that. The public wants to think about kids with funny hair-dos and camo laptops bouncing signals off of satalites and breaking into the Pentagon.
-Compenguin
The Jedi of the Prequels
I've been in the computer field for 35 years and I have never heard the term "hacker" used in a complimentrary way. Same for "cracker", unless you are from Florida or Georgia. We also call them "bit-flippers". People that like to tweek and not document their work. Hackers better come up with another word. They lost the battle a long time ago and are not socially aware to realize it.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
The problem is, when we talk to the waiter we have a different word (restroom instead of head) that conveys the same meaning. Among hackers the word "hacker" has a specific meaning which is different from "cracker". In the rest of the english speaking world "Hacker" means what we think of as "cracker", however, they have no equivilent word that means what we think of as "Hacker".
By allowing the word Hacker to mean Cracker in the media (and therefore in the common language) we have lost a noun that describes a person who creates an elegant solution to a difficult problem. There is simply no alternative word to use.
The solution? We either make a big stink about this little mis-use of the language and take back the word "Hacker", or we invent a new word that the public will recognize as meaning what "Hacker" has meant all along.
2 h00m iT m4y K0n5iRn:
i hUmB4133 5uBmYt 4 uR k0n5YdUr45hUn: d4 m3dYa k41z u5 h4X0rZ bEk4uZ w3 k411 R53lVz h4X0rZ. iPh U wY5h u5 2 k411 R531Vz "kR4kRz", U 4Wt rE411Y 5pe1 iT pR0p3r1Y. n0 531pH r35p3KtInG 5kRyPt KyDdI3 wY11 eVuR k411 hYm431pH 4 "cracker".
y0rZ tR001Y -
0xYd3BuRn
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
This reminds me too much of the whole Trekkie vs Trekker "controversy". I can't believe I'm going to quote Shatner, but here it goes... "Get A Life!"
I thought about it for a minute and came up with "tune". A person can be a tuner, then can tune a 'puter, or fine-tune a box. ie "I am tuning this machine."
The JoeBagOfDoughnuts media will keep using hacker, because they love the word so much and we can identify ourselves how we want with this new meaning of "tune".
1) The media commonly misuses terms anyways (ie: arsenal and clip).
2) No one outside of the hacker/cracker community really cares. To them, it's just geek-speek.
3) We've been arguing this hacker/cracker debate for (how many years now?) and the best that we've gotten is to define cracker as a sub-type of hacker.
4) Languages reflect the way most people use words. When the majority of the people in the world focus on the cracker definition of hacker (because it's more exciting to talk about a criminal mastermind (yes, I know script kiddies are far from criminal masterminds, but the general public doesn't know the difference -- to the general public, a working knowledge of DOS commands makes you a computer guru) than to talk about someone who just tweaked vi), then that definition becomes the accepted one. (Sorry for all the parenthases, I just finished coding in Lisp...)
Essentially, my point is that I don't believe that the term hacker will ever lose it's cracker connotation. The best we can do in this battle is to create a new term (coder? sourcerer?) that we can promote as a sub-type of hacker who follows a code of ethics and works to improve existing code. If we can do this, then hacker won't be incorrect, it will just be non-specific. It would be like saying "Mammal Held Up Convenience Store." It's technically correct, but there is a better, more specific term.
If we refocus our energies on informing the media that there is a more specific term (a *type* of hacker) instead of trying to convince them that all the dictionaries are wrong, then we will be fighting a battle that we CAN win.
Z'
PS: If someone has more time/money than me (a poor grad student), then creating a website like DefinitionOfAHacker.org (or whatever) to promote this idea would be a great start!
It really strikes my irony bone when the propeller heads of the world (esp here on /.) get bent out of shape about the way the public use words like hacker to describe "the wrong thing." Face it, language is the biggest open source project undertaken by man. Words come and go, if you like a word, you use it. If everyone uses it and finds it useful, it becomes a part of the next kernel recompile. If you're still using a old version and don't keep up with the updates, you end up like an old Eskimo, floating off on an iceberg. There's a delicious irony when would be hackers here of all places, complain about the public hijacking "our" word. In desperately trying to control the word, the hangers on of the world are unknowingly becoming what they despise the most. The language code is free.
Guido the Clueless writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term 'criminal' versus 'community-minded businessman with strong family values'." Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the term incorrectly...
Now why are we so sure that we know the "correct" meanings of the word, and the proper use of the term?
1) 99% of the world certainly doesn't agree
2) It's irrelevant that "we" feel "we" are the people they are talking about. Would we let pedophiles decide what *they* should correctly be called? Sorry, if we have our preferred term and it doesn't catch on, tough luck.
3) even 'hacker' *was* used at MIT in the 70's to
describe computer cracking. There was a variety of distinctions and terms usd, none universal (white hat, evil, chaotic neutral, underground, etc.) And it wasn't that the issue didn't arise. There were countless discussions of how outsiders (and even many apparent cognoscienti) 'didn't understand hacking'
Sorry guys. I would've loved to have won this one -- and I suspect that someday we will (when society recognizes the need for these distinctions and adopts terms -- of it's choosing -- to reflect them.
Right now, were just militant whining PC advocates (Political Correctness -- the *other* PC)
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
This is great!
It tells us why the media remain resistant to our attempt to correct their misusage, and also where to hack the problem:
Newsies are resistant because the dictionaries are giving them support for their misuse. So it isn't enough just to tell them how ignorant they sound, and how much it reduces their credibility, when they perpetuate the misuse. Instead the place to fix it is with the publishers of dictionaries.
Dictionary publishers are research organizations. The dictionaries are distilled from their (heavily documented) databases of historical usages. (Much of that is news articles, so it's somewhat circular. But they also include lots of other sources - letters, diaries, published books, etc.)
They also put in a few bogus words (just as mapmakers put in phantom roads and small towns) to check that their competition is doing its own research rather than plagarising their work.
The way to get them to modify an entry or include your definition is to give them documentation of the usage, with dates and references so they can check. The earlier the better for origins - some of them list words in order of first common use rather than current prevalence.
===========================================
By the way: The misuse of hacker for security breaker apparently came from a presentation by an early self-proclaimed "security expert" to early IT department managers and other upper management types. (One of the hackers in the audience was puzzled by the misuse, though he did not question the presenter about it.) It was the managers' first exposure both to many of the computer break-in threats and to the term "hacker", so the misuse apparently got going in the pointy-haired boss circles.
Of course, PHBs listen to each other - especially those one or two levels above them - a LOT more than they listen to their employees. So once it got started in management it tended to stick.
In those days the set "crackers" was nearly a strict subset of the (much larger) set "hackers", in the same way that "rustler" was nearly a strict subset of "cowboy" or "(sea) pirate" a strict subset of "sailor". There wasn't public access to an internet or a set of widely-distributed penetration tools - crackers had to roll their own. Even the basics - like a terminal or a modem - were mostly accessable only to people in the business.
Of course now it's a much different story. Powerful computers are readily available to all for cheap, as are modems and network access. Penetration tools are traded around freely. So a would-be computer cracker doesn't need to develop the skills of a hacker, or even of a programming duffer, to start breaking into systems.
So the set "crackers" now has about as much overlap with the set "hackers" as the set "taggers" has with the set "fine-art painters".
(And in case you're wondering why I told you a lot of stuff you already knew - it's because this might be read by some news editor or dictionary author who didn't already know it. B-) )
And in case any are listening:
- Someone who is an exceptionally skilled programmer is a "hacker" or "computer hacker".
- Someone who breaks system security is a "cracker" or "computer cracker". By analogy with "safe cracker".
- Someone who makes a profit from stolen computer programs or data (or otherwise distributes it without the permission of its proper owner) is a "pirate".
- Someone who damages data, programs, or system function or availability, is a "vandal". (This includes the computer equivalents of everything from graffiti through arson to germ warfare.)
A person may be a member of any or all of the above sets: For instance: Someone might steal and sell or use credit card info from a site he broke into using tools he wrote himself, and damage the site in the process (for instance - to cover his tracks). He might be all four:
- A pirate, for his use of the credit card info.
- A cracker, for obtaining it by breaking system security.
- A vandal, for damaging the database.
- A hacker, for being skillful enough to write de-novo a tool capable of penetrating the system's security.
But these days little psycopaths usually skip "hacker" - because they can get the tools to do what they want without spending years becoming skilled enough at programming to write them for themselves. Why work so hard - and probably get caught during the learning process - when it's easy to get tools from others?
Meanwhile, the people who DO spend the time to become hackers have better, and more lucrative, things to do with their skills than steal credit cards and trash web sites.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It doesn't matter what the media calls us/them. If you don't want to be considered a hacker because of what *they* say look at it this way, we're just geeks. Does it really matter? We do what we love, we understand what they don't and we make a ton of $$ doing it. Let them be wrong and us happy.
-vert-
-vert-
love the penguin
one reason why journalists are in no hurry to use the word ``hacker'' in any sense that self-acknowledged hackers would recognize as legitimate may be the old non-computer origin of ``hack''. Originally, a ``quick hack'' or a ``hack job'' referred to any solution thrown together quickly using whatever you found lying around. For an engineer (and by extension a computer programmer,) being called a ``hacker'' could thus be seen as a compliment, since it means you're very good at modifying existing equipment to do tasks it was never intended to do. but for writers and journalists, being called a ``hack'' is no compliment, since it implies you aren't producing quality work.
so let's start spreading a new meme: only hack journalists call criminals ``hackers''.
(as an afterthought: you might want to start defining ``cracker'' as a CRiminal hACKER.)
20 years ago I used to drive a hack. Then I became somewhat of a computer hacker. Now I am a hack writer.
Hacking has always been my life.
Ideology is for ideots.
This type of petty nitpicking never ceases to amuse me. You can't deny that if you asked a bunch of strangers off the street what a hacker was, you'd hear things like "making viruses" or "breaking into computers". While the media is almost certainly to blame for the widespread use of this definition, there really is not much that can be done to stop it, nor is there really even a good reason to attempt to settle the issue. This all goes back to the idea that the English language itself descriminates against certain groups. However, instead of coming up with new words or euphamisms like the politicaly correct thought police have done, those involved in the hacker/cracker argument want to change the definitions of existing words. This is almost like the NAACP declaring the word "nigger" now means "intelligent, successful person of African descent." If that were to happen, I wouldn't expect the KKK and friends to convey that meaning when they use that word (and they most certainly would).
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
This is only slightly off topic but im going to post it anyway because I AM CANADIAN!
Hey!
I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader... and I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber, or own a dogsled...
and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice.
I have a Prime Minister, not a President.
I speak english and french, NOT american, and I pronounce it 'ABOUT', NOT 'A BOOT'.
I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack.
I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing.
DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation,
AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL.
A TOQUE IS A HAT,
A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH,
AND IT IS PRONOUNCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!!!
CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS!
THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY!
AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA!
MY NAME IS JEFF!! AND I AM CANADIAN!!!!!!!!
--42--
We cannot expect the rest of society to change their use of the word "hacker." What we can do is, now that we are gaining our own group identity, give the press a different term other than "hacker" for us to use. We'll never be able to whitewash the term "hacker."
Consider "negro," "colored," "black." Once they essentially had the same connotation as "nigger," African-Americans asked to be referred to as "African-Americans." Or something else.
A better analogy is that for the press to refer to crackers as hackers is no different from referring to a Chinese person as a "Jap." Because the truth is, the media shouldn't even be using the term "hacker." It's a derogatory term, even if it's one we happen to like. It depersonalizes us, and makes us a lower-than-normal social class.
So, let's see to it that when referring to ourselves to non-hackers, we don't use the term "hacker." (I mean, an african-american can refer to his own kind as "nigga," can't he/she?)
Look up the entymology some time. The word hacker has been in use on the MIT campus for close to 100 years.
It means "a person who operates a complex system in ways other than its designer's intent". At first it mainly referred to students who confused/abused the local bueracracy, who modified machines for practical jokes, or who just snuck into locked buildings through funny entrances.
All of those uses share the same spirit as the popular modern usage.
A "cracker", on the other hand, is a flat dry biscuit, often slightly salty.
It could also be used for someone who decrypts a message or password, but the field of computer intrusion is much broader than mere code-breaking!
Exactly. The term 'sailor' that you use is being used incorrectly (to my definition). A person cannot go sailing on a boat without sails, it's just that simple. But a person in the navy is called a sailor even though they probably have never been sailing in their life. This is most likey because the navy used to use the term 'sailor' as a person who works on a sailing ship. Now with the advent of internel combustion engines/nuclear power no new term has been adopted (except for maybe seaman). So real sailors, ie people who perform the task of sailing, resent their term being used improperly. Obviously 'sailor' has been around for hundreds of years meaning one thing. Now society has warped the meaning of it because of their own stupidity. This is exactly the same debate as 'Hackers vs. Crackers'. It's sad how the creators of a term can be isolated by the rest of the public and that their word's meaning is being warped beyond recognition.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
...to distinguish those two words?
>hacker: when you make another machine more secure on the net and find _yourself_ not able to penetrate into
> cracker: when you make another attempt to hack that xXxXx computer, fail again and (un)fortunately get logged. Or locked?
---
--- Naive inside, foolish outside...:)
In my ongoing ongoing legal battle, one of the issues raised in front of the jury was my frequent self description as Just another Perl hacker. I believe the prosecution was able to use this fact, twisted as they wish, to convince the jury that I was basically evil. In fact, I meant nothing like that in my moniker, but I'm sure the jury wasn't able to distinguish that.
I was around in the days when a Hacker meant a person that broke into computer systems OR a computer enthusiast. A cracker meant a highly skilled person that broke software copy protection.
Well, the problem is Hacker sounds cooler then Cracker (wtf?), and there's more computer enthusiasts then there are computer 'vandals'. So the computer enthusiasts try to take the term for themselves push the 'real' hackers into the cracker realm. Face it, that's the truth.
"Hoson is tired now." Quiz: Where'd that come from?
The "computer educated community" (read: hackers/crackers whatever) wants to be able to use the word in public. They want to say "I am a Hacker" and have women swoon.
Face it, Hacker will never equal Quarterback, deal with it.
Space Cadet
While we're on the topic of misused words, here's one confusion that doesn't show up very often but annoys the hell out of me when it does: etymology vs. entomology. Etymology is the derivation of words from earlier forms--most dictionaries show it at the end of each definition. Entomology is the study of insects.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
A Cracker is someone who decrpyt ciphertext into
plaintext. Or, a poor white person, as in "Let go
eat at the Cracker Barrel"! {I believe that Cracker Barrel is owned by a black person.}
A Hacker is someone who programs, creates, or reverse-engineer an item, ie. hardware or software
jus te pe siz
"I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
The prevailing attitude I see here is that of a bunch of shelterd, affluent, white people who have no real dealings with racism as it exists in America. It is painfully obvious that none of you have ever dealt with it and that your ideas of race relations are based on watching Chris Rock on TV.
Go look at a real ghetto. Talk to the residents. Read them the above post. See if they find it funny.
You say I am over-reacting because you absolutely have no idea what racism means or how much damage these "harmless jokes" do. I guess the current state of the world looks just dandy from those lilly-white suburbs and office parks.
OK. This is the most pathetic argument I have ever seen. Get off your damn lazy computer asses and do something good to benefit mankind or something...my word, get a grip!!
I think the main thing that gets hackers, in the non-malicious meaning, so upset, is that this is a group of people who are already misunderstood by the public in general. And then they misunderstand even the name they chose for themselves!
It's just a way of saying, look, it's bad enough you treat us like weirdos because we like sitting in front of a computer all day, exploring this virtual world of computer instructions. Just when we have this group of people where maybe we fit in, suddenly we're all told we're evil, immature lawbreakers with way too much time on our hands. And just because people in general misassociated a term with a certain behaviour.
It was pretty easy, I admit - from the outside, most people probably can't tell the difference, and really don't care. Apparently, even a good number of people on Slashdot don't know or care either. I remember trying to explain this to people in high school in 1991. Nobody listened, nobody cared (probably just thought I was even weirder) and I'm sure nobody remembers.
In any case, original usage and common usage have diverged. I just stick with "programmer" because people understand that and don't throw a hissy fit. Until computer games officially become the Next Great Evil anyway, then I'm screwed.
sig fault
Here's another word that has somehow been perverted to have a different meaning than the original. It is amazing that the music, software, and motion picture industry have managed to persuade people to use the word `piracy' for unauthorised copying. Or maybe it is just depressing; few industries have more money and clout than these, so when they dictate a new use of the word, journalists are only too happy to use it.
Personally, I think it is great to play with language, but when you change words to make `copying' (whether authorised or not) some kind of Crimethink in the media, and hence in the minds of the general public, then it's too much.
Witness the "Money Programme" on BBC2 last Sunday (7th May), that unquestioned presented the music industry's claim that `piracy is ruining the music industry'!
--- Premature complacency is the evil of all roots
How about using hax0r instead of cracker d00dz.
Hax0r sp3a| is so K3wl.
dp
---
http://insipid.com
What I see here is the hackers wanting to "own" a word and control its usage. The hackers FAQ says that you aren't a hacker until other hackers recognize you as such. What gives them the right to control a word's usage?
One of the most abused rights is the "right" to self-naming. If you are a member of a cultural group, feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but you can't expect the rest of the world to go along with you no matter what.
Examples:
Prince, wierd symbol, "The Artist". Whatever... he's still Prince to me. If he wants to choose a pretentious name like "The Artist" then I'm not going to call him that.
In the same vein, if I change my name to the King of England, you're probably not going to recognize my sovereignty.
Sometimes, when a group advocates a certain name for themselves, they don't even have clear consensus from within the group. For example, using "African American" when "Black" is clearly the most descriptive word available. Try calling someone of Jamaican origin and African American; they sometimes get pissed off. I've even heard the term used to refer to people who live in Africa and are not American in any way, which is ludicrous.
Often, groups use names which have political connotations. "First Peoples" is more of a political statement than a name for a group.
In the abortion debate, both sides want to be pro-something. You can be pro-life or pro-choice. Or you can call your opponents anti-life or anti-choice or pro-death.
The media is better served to reject the obviously poltically-minded naming scheme and just call them pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
In the hacker vs. cracker situation, we have a case where the hackers want to prevent the crackers from calling themselves hackers (let's face it, the crackers probably do want to be known as hackers).
They have no particular right to do this. I have seen one instance where an organization (The Professional Engineers of Ontario) asserted their right to regulate the use of the word "engineer". However, the difference is that they are a trade organization with privileged legal status (and I still don't personally agree with their ability to do this).
God! Awful
How to rationalize theft.
-=Hacker=-:innocent individual acting upon personal oppinion by accessing DATA on other computer systems, this means that "Hackers" are just people looking and searching through DATA files on other peoples computers. These people are not criminals, just believers in intelectual freedom and who dislike the deception of hiding relevant information.
-=Cracker=-:non-inocent person acting as a hacker, then damaging or changing the information they have found in a want that could alter on-line content or even copy-protection on software. "Crackers" goals are leaning toward anarchy of the digital world. To get free game"z" and program"z" from their "c00l warez friendz" and 0-day sites online. Also credit card fraud could fit into this category.
-=Phreaker=-:person who commits illegal acts to get free services and merchandise by means of an electronic device. "Phreakers" use an assortment of techniques and devices commonly called *boxes(the star representing a color/function) to get phone calls, money from pop machines and pay-phones, credit card fraud by means of generating false cards, etc.
Real anonymous cowards don't know the difference between a hacker and a vampire, it seems.
If an anonymous coward were to somehow approach a real hacker and mouth off about their pet theory of what a hacker is, the hacker would respond "FOAD"