Slashdot Mirror
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."
(it's a shame this story got rejected by
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Crackers 0wn your webcam server, then redirect from their own webcam. This is how they 'view themselves'.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
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?
Many words, like "hacker", have more than one meaning. Just because you don't like one of its meanings doesn't make it wrong.
hacker
gratuitously
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?
There are plenty of articles claiming that most digital attacks come from Brazil. The URL below is just one of them. http://www.securesynergy.com/securitynews/newsitem s/2003/sep-03/290903-07.htm
All crackers view themselves as Neo, these days ... Apart from the female ones, who view themselves as Trinity. All the male crackers of course assume that all the female crackers are male too...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
some of the respondents were married and had children.
That makes them normal, not hackers. Move along now.
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?
Sounds awful familiar, doesn't it Slashdotters?
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.
Besides, isn't Cracker a racial slur anways?
How about we all agree to use Honkey(sp?) instead.
...so take the findings with a grain of salt.
Is this some obscure joke about salted crackers?
Most of the crackers i've come into contact with were from eastern europe, or asia. Truth be told, most of the organized cracking groups are German.
Of course, this begs the question: What is cracking?
I'm referring to it as it's most commonly taken today, the reversal of antipiracy measures on software. However, the term cracker really refers to someone who can break past security measures into servers...
I wish the article explained the differences in the terminology, else you might suspect something very different from the truth!
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*
I still am surprised to hear hacker used in a bad context. I remeber it being a good things, I person who worked hard through the night building things.
I hate it when words change their meanings.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I am a net engineer, ergo I know how networks work or don't and are sercure or not. Does this mean I am a security risk myself? I can throw a brick through a windows just as well as I know how to pick locks, physically and literally. I choose not to be malicious, and thats the difference. (Besides, federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison does not sound like the place you send postcards from, and too many people end up there for the wrong reasons.) Well.. my .02 worth, flaimbait me if you feel the need.
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?
Hmmm...so frat boys know how to use a computer? Or is she talking about the weekend wardriver crowd?
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).
I would think the second clause would negate the first. I'm too lazy to do a logic diagram at the moment...
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.
#define CLUE 0
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.
Well, the original article is in Hebrew. Right? So maybe something was lost in translation. Maybe "When you crack a code, it gives you an amazing feeling" started out in Hebrew as "smashing a variable stack by overflowing an input buffer on an exposed port and injecting arbitrary code thereby gaining remote root access on the machine really gives you an amazing feeling."
Or not.
And that is exactly what hackers did.
Then came the early 90's.
All the kids that took CS to become "Hackers" found out that it was often a very less than honorable profession. Since their underinflated ego didn't like the name "programmer", they started to lift the term hacker and replace it with cracker.
Those of us that were there, and awake during the late 70's and early 80's know exactly what a "hacker" is.
Like scientists and engineers, hackers are intelligent people who enjoy solving problems and utilizing technology to make a difference where most others would not or cannot.
The difference is, while scientists and engineers are comfortable with following orders from superiors, hackers do not like to take orders and dislike any idea of being controlled. Why put all your effort into research and development when some large entity is just going to use it to further their own profit? Therefore, it is better to own your lab, and promote independence.
Another factor is that many areas of technology are just not feasible to experiment with in today's high density urban areas. For example, if you want to experiment with blacksmithing, foundry work, machining, and solar power, it's hard enough doing it as an adult renting a condo or apartment. Imagine trying it as a teenager in a room of your parent's house? Everyone else dismisses your interest in these skills which you believe to be important, and they tell you to work towards relying on others, which is harder to do nowadays with so many profiting from our dependence. For example, the US is the richest nation in the world and yet has the worst child poverty rate and the worst life expectancy of all the world's industrialised countries. With many unable to pursue their natural curiosities towards scientific and industrial processes in a backyard, the computer fills in this void of discovery.
If society's infrastructure were to collapse, I bet hackers would be the ones hammering metal, planting crops, refining biodiesel, and generating electricity, like Benjamin Franklin or that little guy in Mad Max 3.
Crackers don't see themselves as trailer trash, and their mullet is the most stylish way to cut their hair.
They think having the rusty cars in the front yard is useful, because one day you might just need an '84 Trans Am transmission.
They also create websites like this, which was featured on the Cruel site of the day blog.
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...
"3 out of 54 respondents were women"
I don't like those odds.
TruePunk | Games
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
In my experience, crackers view themselves as golden brown and delicious, especially with a slice of cheese on top of them and some wine to wash it down.
However, it's been a while since I talked to a cracker, so things may have changed.
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
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.
Actualy, one of the nice things about the english language is that words can have multiple meanings. I agree that the term "hacker" dosn't really apply to programmers, but generaly the 'benevolent' version applies to someone who plays around with computers a lot. The 'malign' version has always applied to people who break into computer systems.
Cracker always meant breaking copy protection.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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".
Somewhere in the 'real' Real World.
Two hackers, uh, I mean crackers, erm... dammit! Two geeks meet in person for the first time.
Neo1337357: Trinity? [Blah... something about a bank IIRC, I can count the number of times I've seen The Matrix on two hands] I..... thought you were a girl.
Trinity9348: Most guys do.
'Neo' becomes very uncomfortable as he realises he is standing in an S&M club with a large, sweaty guy he has shared his most intimate fantasies with.
Somewhere in the background a Rob Zombie track is playing. Fade to black.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
- NBC Dateline was successfully sued by GM after they admitted placing incindiery devices in the gas tanks of trucks. NBC was trying to show that the trucks were dangerous in side impacts; when the demonstrations failed to produce a fire, the crew placed igniters in (or near) the gas tank to produce the desired effect.
- On a Veteran's day special, Jessica Lynch told Barbara Walters she never fired her weapon in combat. Numerous news agencies reported that she had been shot and went down shooting, in spite of the fact that her fellow soldiers said otherwise. Apparently, the idea of a soldier being captured after being knocked unconscious by a vehicle accident wasn't juicy enough for them.
- In the late 90's, the "black church burnings in the South" scandal made the news, and several prominent celebrities called for the FBI to investigate the matter. The media neglected to report that church arson in the South had been on the deline for several years. Perhaps they felt that the South was starting to lose its racist image, so they "corrected" it by making up a story with no basis in fact.
- The supposed "sex scandal" in the Catholic Church. The popular media listed names of accused priests, in spite of the fact that many already had their names cleared! In some cases, the accusers admitted publicly that they made up the stories, yet the media failed to report this. The others who had actually been convicted had been defrocked and barred from ministry, in some cases as long as 20 years ago. By the time the story broke, the so-called "needed reforms" in the Diocesan structure had been implemented for 10 years!
-
And let's not forget about that New York Times reporter who faked almost half of his articles over the course of a year or so.
I could go on, but I'll spare you. These stories were carried by major news agencies, some by the AP. This is not simply a matter of a someone making a mistake - this is routine practice for journalists. Granted, they might teach ethics in school, but there's a de facto assumption among journalists that they'll get a controversial story whether or not one exists.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.