How Crackers View Themselves
prostoalex writes "Dr. Orly Turgeman Goldschmidt from Hebrew University of Jerusalem conducted a research to figure out if there any any differences between the classic computer vandal stereotypes and the real life. After surveying 54 Israeli repondents and using the term hacker gratuitously, Goldshmidt found out many computer vandals to be "young, well-educated men without a
criminal record, who belong to the middle or
upper class." 3 out of 54 respondents were women, some of the respondents were married and had children. Goldschmidt's survey seemed to include somewhat low-life representatives of computer security community, the type who goes on shopping sprees on stolen credit cards, so take the findings with a grain of salt."
What's the big hang up of hacker vs cracker? I understand both meaning of hacker and the definition of cracker. So why the persistence with insisting hackers should be called crackers?
Considering a good 90+ percent of the world uses the term hacker to describe breaking into computer systems and what not what's the point in trying to change or clarify it?
From the article: "As one would expect, hackers need to operate undercover. Thus, in order to find interviewees, Turgeman had to do some detective work and, through journalists, conferences and Web sites, she managed to find hackers willing to talk to her."
Or, she mananged to find some script kiddies or, random people who felt like showing off. According to the article, 'hackers' are considered cool ("Apparently, the image that society has of hackers is generally positive"), so maybe someone thought it would be fun to 'be' one. The quotes by the interviewees are highly non-technical (for example, "When you crack a code, it gives you an amazing feeling", and rants about MS); did she ask any of them if they knew how a TCP handshake worked, or anything?
Goldschmidt's survey seemed to include somewhat low-life representatives of computer security community, the type who goes on shopping sprees on stolen credit cards, so take the findings with a grain of salt."
What, because her survey turned up some "low lifes" it suddenly can't be trusted and must be "taken with a grain of salt"? Where does this logic come from? Had her survey only found up right individuals that were doing it for pure knowledge, then we would take the survey as gospel?
probably don't run around talking to people about their illegal activities, especially people trying to get in contact with them.
If you've been hacked by the best, you probably don't even know it because they leave no trace and don't brag about what they do. Of course this opens the door to such questions as, do people like this actually exist?
Might be better to assume that there are. *dons tinfoil hat*
Turgeman herself was told ... where she lived, how many children she had, and what her marital status was. "The first time that happened I was frightened," she recalls, "but, after a while, I just got used to it."
Jeeeeeesus! I would expect a little more from someone doing Ph.D. thesis. Any idiot could do that stupid trick. Given a phone number, you start at 441 to find the exact name and then just search in the Israeli Electorate Registry.
We have a situation here where we're reading a reporter's review of a conversation with the author of an academic study about that study. Doesn't that seem a little weak? I understand if there's an attempt to simplify and provide a summary, but how can we make any judgements, or even see what the author was trying to get across without a link to the document?
I made a vaguely involved attempt to find the PDF or HTML file somewhere on the various universities mentioned in the article, but then figured out I was doing too much work for it.
I collect strange academic papers so I'd like a copy, as I'm sure some small portion of Slashdot folks would as well. Others can continue the trend by commenting on a slashdot story about a reporter's thoughts on a conversation with a professor about an academic study.
There's a name for that; it's called hypocrisy. Does this person really believe that Microsoft employees' livelihoods don't depend on their employment? What does he have against all of those people, as he's decided it's moral to screw all of them too!
Contrary to what a lot of people (and no small number of them are Slashdotters) think, Microsoft employees depend on their jobs as much as the employees of small companies.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Yes, Microsoft employees depend on their jobs. But their jobs depend on the ill-gotten gains of a convicted monopolist. Complaining that you're hurting them by pirating Microsoft software is like complaining about all those wiseguys who will lose their jobs when the cops bust a Mafia operation.
And as a practical matter, Microsoft can afford it. $40 billion in the bank will soak up a lot of losses. I'm more interested in what the guy said a line earlier in the interview: that if what he's doing is wrong, it's because he's helping to distribute Microsoft software. The truth of the matter is that pirated copies of Windows and Office are one of Bill Gates' best marketing tools.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
From the article: In the case of Yaron, 39, a former hacker who now owns an information security company, the court's verdict reflected a sympathetic
attitude toward hackers. The judge "saw the situation in the correct light," Yaron told Turgeman, "unlike the police." In the 1980s, Yaron was charged with breaking into the Yedioth Ahronoth daily's system and planting a fictitious item on one of the teachers in his school. The judge considered the incident a "prank" and decided not to convict him.
This is definitely not representative of what happens in the USA.
The key flaw in Dr. Goldschmidt's disertation is that 'hackers' (crackers), and the response of society as a whole is consistent across international boundaries. This could not be further from the truth.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
What kind of a study is this? Seems to be she is just indulging in sensationalism. The sample is just too small and all she seems to be doing is trying o reinforce the hollywood 'hacker' image the guy who effortlessly breaks into systems.
And to people cribbing over why hackers insist on correct terminology, well all I will say is it is really demeaning to be associated with script kiddies. And it really isn't much is it? Just two letters of the alphabet replacing one with a fairly significant difference in meaning.
And besides look at the press are doing.They are puting ppl like Linus, Alan Cox in the same category as some really desperate ego mongers.
Do you realize what your saying has a direct comparison to the MS, Open Source battle? Its like saying:
Since Microsoft own's over 90% of the operating sytsem market let's give up. Its no use changing it.
Why develop FreeBSD, Linux or any other software at all? Who cares? Lets get over our little dream of changing the software landscape by providing key, stable and secure software and just follow Microsoft. It will be easier.
If it is wrong, work to change it. If enough people acknowledge the misuse it is bound to change. The English language evolves in this way, through the use of the words in language. How do you think hacker became to have the meaning it does today. I'm not sure of the real etymology of the word, but I'm sure it ended up being used incorrectly in some book or magazine and has been tainted ever since.
--Chris
Just trying to make a point...
still looks like everyone is abusing terms...
a HACKER can be two things:
1) an enthusiastic programmer/tinkerer who takes pride in finding clever ways to solve problems and tries to gain an intimate understanding of computers/code/technology (this was the original definition, appearing in the late 60's/ early 70's)
2) a person who specializes in bypassing computer security systems, whether maliciously or not [more often for the sake of knowledge, not malice] (this definition came about in the early 80's)
both of these definitions are correct
a CRACKER is someone who specializes in CRACKING software copy protection.. it's a term from the warez scene, also from early 80's...
a PHREAKER is someone who specializes in unauthorized use of telephone systems and networks.. also from early 80's
a TWEAKER is someone who specializes in computer hardware and pushing it beyond its limits, from mid-late 90's
a LAMER is someone who thinks the terms HACKER and CRACKER are interchangeable
Dude, that's not so subtle. The first guy has a life. The second one needs therapy. Perhaps a clinical term should be used to describe the second guy.
Good distinction.
A. Programming enthusiast -When he runs into trouble, he'll find something else to do.
B. Hacker -When he runs into trouble, he'll persist until he finds out why.
The driving motivation behind a hacker, to not let a stupid computer get the better of him, is incomprehensible to the media and probably represents a value system that is anathema to the media's value system.
Codesmith would represent someone skilled and fluent whose excellent output was within his competence. Probably a very rare breed.
Hacker represents someone with more determination than skill whose output exceeds his competence. Extremely desirable when you want/need stuff to work even in a SNAFU environment.
Hacker has very much the sense of "to hack" which is decidely non-complementary. The use of the term as a high complement is recognition of the determination, persistence and effort that have to have gone into producing the results. This hits at the essence of a world where everything is supposed to be "easy" and "now".
1) How crackers view themselves
Who cares. Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour. Any decent sociopath will justify his or her actions as morally correct. Just ask a pedophile about how six year old kids can seduce them, or a rapist about how his victim was 'just asking for it.'
2) On cracker vs. hacker
Yes, hacker was once used as a complimentary term. Then it was used (mostly by the media) as a derogatory term. Then a subset of the "good" hacker community came out with cracker to differentiate. Well guess what; it didn't catch on. Nobody except a small, vocal subset of the 'good' hackers uses the term, and it's just awkward. It doesn't flow well. Whingeing about "proper" terminology in this circumstance is a lost cause. Use whatever terms make you feel better (either cracker, black hat, malicious hacker, or whatever), but quit getting so bent out of shape over your new term not getting accepted.
3) On proper sample size.
It's not statistics here, it's a series of interviews! She's not extrapolating numbers, and my reading was that it was the article author, not the PhD candidate who was extrapolating behaviour to the rest of the community.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Get your own facts straight. The very first "hacker" climbed through windows to stick his punchcards in machines he wasn't allowed to touch.
The amateur programmer meaning is a retroactive redefinition. So is the use of "Geek" to mean "someone who loves technology". In the past 5 years, self-professed "geeks" have attempted (with moderate success) to swap the definition of "geek" and "nerd".