2 Views of Hackers

zonker writes "CNN has an interesting perspective on hacking with two opposing yet, somewhat complementary views. They have an interview with 2600's Emmanuel Goldstein vs. IBM's Charles Palmer. Goldstein tries to explain the hacker ethic and big media's clueless portrayal of 'hackers' in general. Palmer draws hackers in a more corporate eye. Draw your own conclusions."

Comments

Boot+Head+Charles Palmer

[redial 1]

"But if a stranger came into your house, looked through everything, touched several items, and left (after building a small, out of the way door to be sure he could easily enter again), would you consider that harmless?" - Charles Palmer

Let's just say my house is e*trade.

Number one, I lock my house, I hope you lock your house. So in order to get in you probably have to find that open window on the third floor that someone left unlocked. I leave it unlocked because, hell, no one's come in it before, why lock it. So we aren't talking about just walking in the front door anymore.

Now lets say that in my house (e*trade) I store your personal and financial information. You know that my third floor window is open, you even tell me on more than one occasion that I should probably lock it. I hear you, but just blatantly and recklessly ignore you. So, you break in to my house and wander around, realizing that anyone could have done this. I come home and find a big note on my front-door, it says, I came into your house, but don't worry, I locked the window when I left.

-Redial+1

Mainstream v. subculture

[Signal 11]

I suppose you would also recommend that the possessive form of "it" should be "it's" since that's what most people use, too?

We're the techies and the geeks here. This is our profession, this is our playground. As with any profession, we have our own set of jargon. A set of jargon which is frequently screwed up and misrepresented by the general public.

In the same way that your doctor groans whenever you walk into the office proclaiming what ills you (but showed up anyway) and requesting a specific remedy without letting him do his job, computer geeks get incensed when you use the wrong term, poorly describe the problem, and then become belligerant that your solution is The One that'll work.

I don't tell doctors what to call Ecoli or what a phage is, so I don't expect them to tell me what a computer virus is or how the linux kernel works.

We defined this set of jargon, and it's up to US, not THEM to determine its use. If they screw it up, that's their fault, not ours. If it leads to miscommunication and disinformation it is THEIR fault, NOT ours. If they are muddling in the affairs of computer professionals and using terms without knowing what they mean, they deserve to be flammed for it. They're doing the world a disservice.

We use jargon to effect rapid communication between others in the profession. While it may seem elitist to create a language for solely our use, consider the alternative - using existing language. We have acronyms and words to describe *exactly* what we are thinking. Go and start changing that around and you'll have a communication problem.

It's our duty to correct this problem before we find ourselves speaking each in different dialects. This is a matter of linguistics and communication... not pride.

--

this isn't new...

[thelaw]

this opposing viewpoints interview section has been around forever.

it was announced in april in this story.

jon

Expect more cloudy days...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The media loves to use the word hacker to describe what we know as a cracker (or even a script kiddie in some cases). Don't expect them to clear this up. With stuff like DeCSS-vs-MPAA and Napster-vs-RIAA, Big Media now thinks of techie hotshots as 'the enemy' and will continue to do what they can to make us look bad to the mainstream. What better way to do so than to make Joe SixPak think that the smart kid who plays MP3's at home is the same kid who breaks into Pentagon computers and tries to launch nuclear missiles?
--

Re:Check spelling!

[cnj]

Emanuel Goldstein was the name of the person who 'escaped' in Orwell's (yet another alias) classic 1984. He wrote a manifesto explaining the realities of the world under Big Brother which O'Brian gives Winston to read. He was a symbol of 'the underground'.

If you want more info, check everything2 or search the web with your favorite search engine for more info . . .

You can also read this for a story similar to Orwells.

--

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!

[zencode]

You guys must have had one hell of a Friday night. This page hit CNN in 1998 (look at the source) and you already reported in 1999.

My .02,

one again

[fluxrad]

Goldstein is one hell of a spokesperson for the hacker ethic.

The only problem? None of the unenlightened seem to get what he's saying. You can tell by the tone of the questions being directed at him from this article that the writer and Goldstein have come to the table with two complete definitions of the word hacker. The questions are more of a "i know what a hacker is (read: media hacker) and i just want you to answer these questions since you're admitedly one" - two bad Goldstein is admiting to being something of which the author has no idea.

I really think people should pay closer attention to Goldstein's definition of "hacker" though, and his use of the term "cracker." - I agree sincerely with his belief that you can't just use "cracker" as a catchall for anyone who breaks into a system or anyone who "breaks the law" - whatever the hell that is. This makes things too black and white. It makes hackers look like saints and crackers look like uber-villains. Way too black and white for something as complex as the internet.

Oh well, once again, the uneducated will see hackers as villains since they have no concept of what it is to be one. It's like telling someone who's never done drugs before what they're like. (bad analogy ;-)


FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network