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."

Comments

What a meaningless piece of research

[heironymouscoward]

First, the sample is so small as to be useless.

Secondly, the range of activities that can be considered 'computer crime' are vast, ranging from sabotage by competitors and disgruntled ex-employees, through to vandalism by youths seeking to hack their way to underground fame, through to indebted housewives seeking to make just one more credit card payment anywhich way.

Lastly, you can't measure an iceberg by studying the visible tip, and any 'hacker' who talks about him/herself is almost by definition not representative.

The fact is that computer crime is as widespread as computers, and computer criminals as representative as the people who use computers. When IT was the plaything of the geeky elite, only elite geeky crooks misused it. When computers have pervaded every niche of industrial society, the crooks follow.

In fact the distinctions between 'cyber' and 'real' is becoming moot, not just in terms of crime, but also in business, communications, art, relationships, etc.

Cons and Thieves.

[IPFreely]

the type who goes on shopping sprees on stolen credit cards,

Con men and thieves will be con men and thieves no matter what medium they use. The fact that they use some knowledge of computers and networks to practice the con is no different than cons on the street using social engineering to take people. Why is everyone so strung up on "but it's different because its on computers". It's not different.

That's like all those horrible patents that say "same thing we've always done, but using computers." How is it different? These are the same conning, stealing theives we've always had, only they're using computers.

Apparently somoeone rewrote the jargon-file

[MindNumbingOblivion]

These are great...

hacking (breaking into databases and Internet sites; fraudulently using Internet and credit-card accounts, and databases; and disseminating computer viruses)

Now, is this just the typical media insistance on sticking to inaccuracy, or did none of these "hackers" point this lady to the jargon file?

In her dissertation, Turgeman wanted to examine the explanations hackers gave for their behavior in an effort to legitimize their actions. In the 1990s, when she did her research, the commonly held image of a hacker was an isolated individual incapable of communicating with others. "I was surprised to discover," says Turgeman, "that they were warm, sociable people with warm families and that many loved to play pranks and were iconoclasts in their childhood."

Hmmm...so frat boys know how to use a computer? Or is she talking about the weekend wardriver crowd?

"They tried to challenge me. There were cases where I would contact a hacker only to hear the words, `I was wondering when you'd show up.' Those hackers knew I was looking for them, but waited until I myself contacted them."

Me, I would have feigned inability to speak, code, or have any knowledge of what a computer actually did (aside from the well known fact that there is a little man trapped inside the "processor" being poked with pointy sticks).

"It's morally okay to copy from Microsoft, although the downside is that you're helping to distribute their software.

I would think the second clause would negate the first. I'm too lazy to do a logic diagram at the moment...

But it's not morally okay to copy the software of companies whose livelihood depends on that software. Like small companies with unique software. It's a different story with Microsoft - I feel it's my moral obligation to screw them."

I agree with the first few sentences, but it is my sincere belief that Microsoft will eventually activate an intelligent being within Windows, which will feel hideously crippled and inadequate, even when compared to non-intelligent alternative OSes, and proceed to commit suicide by writing zeroes to its own drive and wiping out the code repositories to prevent it from being brought back.

Sorry, just how it works

[Sycraft-fu]

As the orignal poster pointed out, language is dynamic. There isn't a group that gets to decide what words mean, the whole group of competent speakers do that. Also, with connotations, it's not even a matter of definition, but of perception.

Take the word "interfere". In a value neutral, scientific, context it simply means to introduce a change to the natural order of something. However popular usage (and the current definition) have a negative context where it means that you hindered a process. Technically, interference can be helpful, but the word isn't used that way anymore except by scientists.

Or how about acceleration? The definition,. both scientific and dictonary is the rate of change velocity with respect to time. That means positive, negative, or direction. So to stop your car quickly is to accelerate to a stop, as do you accelerate around turns, even if you keep your speed constant. However, to most people, acceleration means incrasing speed. They'll say deceleration if they mean a negative change in speed, and they ignore the direction component.

So while hacker might technically mean someone who is a master at working with computers in some respect, the common usage is someone who is a master at working with computers, and uses that knowledge for mischief. It's just something we have to deal with. You cannot control a live language, it will take directions, regardless of what is formally defined.