Hackers Not Afraid of Being Caught

An anonymous reader wrote in to point us to an interview with Honeynet Founder Lance Spitzner where he says "Years ago it was hackers who were doing it for the bragging rights, now it's the criminals. The motivation has changed, hacking is now profitable and there's so much money to be made with very little risk to the actual hackers."

Comments

I smell a business opportunity.

[dada21]

Of course hacking is profitable -- the laws of supply and demand cover this as any service or product. The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot. For acts considered criminal, the value to the service provider will still meet what the market dictates. In this case, the chance of getting caught is low, so hacking might not be as profitable as selling pot, but it also depends on the demand. If hackers are making money, that means there is a demand for their service. If only a few hackers are willing to take the risk, a high demand and low supply of service providers means a high cost/profit. That's the nature of the free market.

Yet I don't think this profit will necessarily last forever -- even if laws change to make it easier to catch a hacker and even if the penalties are raised. The Internet is global, not local. With more third party countries gaining Internet access and more people willing to invest the time to learn to hack, I believe hackers will find their jobs outsourced as quickly as call centers and web developers have. So what?

The State will write laws to defend against hacking, but the reality is that the free market will provide better defense. There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk. Hackers make a profit only means that anti-hackers have a new business opportunity -- and if you're good with security, you should make a windfall NOW before the law interferes with YOUR ability to secure your clients. Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."

Take advantage of this business opportunity today -- on either side of the "battle."

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk."

So I guess Hammarapi and every form of social organization since his time are wrong and we should have no laws?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[neimon]

..unless of course your competitor has a flame-thrower. And therein your logic dies. People are assholes. Making them act MORE selfish is sure going to fix the problem, yup, you betcha. "Free market?" Where? In a "free market," whoever gathers the most sticks and stones first gets to dominate. Not exactly "free" then, is it? Unless you want a "market of one."

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your principle that hacking is a service that produces a product. That may be true for some forms of hacking, but if someone hacks into my bank and steals my account information, then I would compare that more akin to mugging than pot dealing. I hope there isn't a market for muggings.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[dada21]

Really? And how do you know that mugging is bad? Because people have been mugged, and the lesson learned is "that is bad!" Some kids touch hot stoves and burn themselves, and the outcome now is parents who are more careful. Some kids stuck keys in outlets, and the outcome is very cheap outlet protectors (provided by the free market, not by some ridiculous one-size-fits-all government law).

If hacking is profitable, anti-hacking will be done. The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[MadEE]

The State will write laws to defend against hacking, but the reality is that the free market will provide better defense. There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk. Hackers make a profit only means that anti-hackers have a new business opportunity -- and if you're good with security, you should make a windfall NOW before the law interferes with YOUR ability to secure your clients. Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."

What complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. First of all the novelty of an alarm system is notification of the police, who job it is to *gasp* uphold the law. There are plenty of processionals that can or profession demands the ability to pick locks, bypass alarm systems and assault a building in a manner that would make a gun have very little effect. Despite this you see professionals in all of these trades work in legitimate trades despite the fact that illegal ones would be far more profitable. Perhaps the knowledge that maybe losing a chunk of your life to jail may put some second thoughts into these people.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Fred_A]

Not exactly "free" then, is it? Unless you want a "market of one."

Yes, that's how "free" markets usually end up.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[s20451]

The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.

Anyone who thinks anarchocapitalism is a good idea should move to Somalia. The governmental vacuum is basically filled by loosely organized and bad-tempered gangs of mercenaries, although cell phone service is apparently cheap and plentiful. I would prefer the law, thanks.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[From A Far Away Land]

Better still for the black hats, they can do their crimes in countries where they don't reside, further complicating prosecution if they even do get caught.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[maxume]

Locks keep honest people out. Alarms send bad guys next door. They solve the immediate problem. Note that alarms don't work so well in the absence of the police+justice system, which is so graciously provided by the market .

Yes, the free market does provide the Colt 45, but society has collectively decided that there are better ways of controlling the assholes than shooting them all the time. Get used to it.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Jaeph]

"There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work? No, locks do. In situations where locks don't work, alarms work. In situations where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation. The law has almost no effect on crime other than raising the profit for those willing to take the risk."

It's not a crime unless it's against the law, by definition. If breaking and entering wasn't a crime, then you the home owner would be the criminal if you shot someone entering your home. You would also be disturbing the peace with your alarm.

Oh, and locked doors don't do squat against bricks through a window. Locks generally only keep honest people honest - they are a trivial defense against people.

-Jeff

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we have a solid difference of opinions on some very basic belief structures about morals and such. I think you have found a good economics based unified theory that explains the world to you. While I'll admit your ideas sound logical and I don't have any such model of my own, I still disagree. Call me a fundamentalist, but I think soceity would be much more profitable without muggings of the physical or virtual sort.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Archangel Michael]

"I would prefer the law"

Somalia has laws. What they don't have is ORDER. Laws do not create order. Enforcement of laws does.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

First of all the novelty of an alarm system is notification of the police, who job it is to *gasp* uphold the law.

This is untrue. The chances of the police responding in time to do anything is very slim. The main purpose is to alert the owner and other people nearby, thus increasing the risk of this particular robbery or crime. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, but they have neither the manpower or the will to prevent crime.

There are plenty of processionals that can or profession demands the ability to pick locks, bypass alarm systems and assault a building in a manner that would make a gun have very little effect.

Relative to the general populace or to the criminal populace, this just isn't true. Locks are easy to pick, alarm systems can be bypassed, but very few criminals take the time to do either when there are easier targets.

Perhaps the knowledge that maybe losing a chunk of your life to jail may put some second thoughts into these people.

Threat of punishment is a motivational factor, but surprisingly, not a very significant one. Studies have shown people in general believe they can get away with crimes without being caught. The main motivation for not committing them is actually a moral one. People do not feel justified in robbery. One of the strongest correlations with robbery and violent crime worldwide is wealth disparity. In places where some people are very poor and others are very rich, despite the rich not necessarily working harder or being smarter than the poor, the rates of these crimes is higher. It is easy to justify robbery when you were born into debt while others were born into extreme wealth. And that is exactly what people do.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And of course, when the courts side with the criminals it becomes MORE profitable and LESS risky.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Aczlan]

well that depends on how bad someone wants to rob you. If you are known to have a Colt 45 security system and most of the people on your block dont have one, unless someone wants to get YOU than they will pick an easier target

Aaron Z

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[xappax]

OK, I hate government just as much as you, but on this matter it seems like you don't really know what you're talking about.

You claim that tighter laws and enforcement against computer criminals will encourage computer crime by driving down the supply of willing "workers". While this may jive with your anarcho-capitalist theory, it just ain't true.

The entire point of the article was that hacking is prevalent because there isn't serious enforcement of the law. The author points out that criminals use insecure methods of communication, not even bothering to conceal themselves, because they're confident that the law won't touch them. If the governments in eastern europe cracked down on internet crime, and actively investigated and arrested computer criminals, many of the current participants would be scared out of the game, no longer confident that they're above the law. There is a threshold of risk beyond which very few people are willing to go, even for a huge reward, and this is even more true of a job that requires in-depth training and is inaccessible to the vast majority of people.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose cyber-crime crackdowns, and I for one do, but the argument you're making in this case is naive to both the technical and economic realities of international computer crime.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[mapkinase]

I wholeheartedly agree with the last paragraph. Further, we need to stop glamorizing hackers, the same way movie industry stopped glamorizing the mob (think Godfather -> Goodfellas transition). The main reason it has not been done yet is the hacker world is almost completely non-violent one. When hackers are associates of the multi-area mafia, they are at the same service level as lawyers, drivers, gray-business owners (pimps, dealers, bookmakers), small-business owners of the meeting places (restaurants, motels), etc... which are not particularly glamorized, but also not vilified enough as hitmen and high-level mob managers are.

Besides this, there are other important differences between breeching brick-and-mortar and breeching digital.

1. One-target-per-act - many-targets-per-act (hence "going after easy targets" emphasized)
2. Localized - internationalized (hence "hard to catch" factor)

Those two factors make huge difference.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[diersing]

And if the ORDER, whether from enforcement agencies lack of size/strength/resources/capabilities/perception, can not enforce a law the free market will provide a solution for a fee.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[technococcus]

Hey, just FYI:

Alarm systems notify the police. The police come to the house. This process will almost certainly take far longer than the process of Break-and-Enter, Rape-and-Pillage, Then Haul Ass that the criminals in any given breaking and entering situation will be using. If you don't believe me, check the home invasion response times on the FBI's website. Nearly all calls (real live actual person calls, not automated alarm triggers!) take 5+ minutes, and a shocking amount have longer response times.

Also, just so you're aware of this next time you rely on the police to protect you/your rights:

It has been upheld three times (to my knowledge, there may have been more, more recent cases that uphold this as well) that a police department and its officers and employees are not responsible for providing for the personal protection or safety of any private citizen's health, life, welfare, or property and that none of these have any obligation to place themselves at any risk to protect any of those. A friend of mine who was a SWAT member on the Indianapolis PD for 20+ years (and spent the last 2 as an entry leader) has mentioned that doing a response to a home invasion call by the book according to many agencies and departments involves showing up and then checking your watch. You sit in the car for 5 minutes. THEN, you go see what's going on. The departments don't want their officers going in where there might still be criminals. So, yeah, the police probably won't be anything like as helpful to you in the defense of your life and property (and the lives and property of your loved ones) as a firearm that you have some skill with. A gun rarely has "very little effect" unless you're storing it improperly for defense (i.e., not near you/on you, not loaded, locked; most of your hunting weapons which stay locked in the safe wouldn't help, but the pistol you carry on a daily basis and the 12-gauge you keep loaded behind the bed would) or are completely unskilled in its use or unwilling to use it as intended (i.e., to fire upon in an attempt to incapacitate an intruder/threat).

Again, this has been a public service announcement for the instruction of all people interested in their own welfare.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Foobar of Borg]

And if the ORDER, whether from enforcement agencies lack of size/strength/resources/capabilities/perception, can not enforce a law the free market will provide a solution for a fee.

Ah, yes, Adam Smith's old "invisible hand holding the AK-47" :-)

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[egamma]

So basically, you think all laws are useless? Maybe we should legalize murder. According to your logic, by making murder illegal, we are raising the prices that hit men charge, and by making murder legal, we would make it less profitable. At least, that's your logic. ...the gaping hole in your logic is that sometimes people do things because they WANT to do things. Making murder legal would only increase the amount of murder--after all, it would be more affordable and you could get away with it. You could play GTA in real life! Making it legal would only serve to make life even more miserable for those of us who fight against such things. It's not going to make things better, it will make things worse, to where you can't stroll down the sidewalk (cyberwalk?) without fearing for your safety.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Archangel Michael]

"the free market will provide a solution for a fee."

or leave, leaving the market to thieves and vultures. The result being that products cost more, and are of lessor quality than in markets with civility where thieves are a nuisance, rather than a major market force.

Most people have a distorted view of Adam Smith. His theories had some basic assumptions, ones often tossed aside during these types of discussions.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the US has carnage everywhere. On every single block there are people with pumpguns and assault rifles shooting each other.

Yeah, right. Just because the stronger person can win doesn't mean that people *want* such a society. Therein the flaw in your logic lies.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[XSEnergy]

The point is that Law increase the cost of an illegal service (not necessarily the profit), if there where no Laws the service would be cheaper hence to make a profit you would have to move more "volume" clearly not a prefferd scenario.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[vertinox]

What complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. First of all the novelty of an alarm system is notification of the police, who job it is to *gasp* uphold the law.

I take it you don't live in major city with high crime...

This morning I walked out to see a car window smashed. Hey at least it wasn't mine, but it has happened to me before. The problem is that you can better protect yourself with the free market than police.

I have an alarm on my house as well because if someone did break in without it, the police would come by and make a report, shrug and then leave. I've got a 0.00001% of recovering anything if I diligently harass the pawn shops.

With the alarm, there is the nice deterrent and the police can respond (I'm also like the emergency "help I'm being held hostage button combination" in case someone tries to get me to forcefully disable to alarm at gun/knife point).

So yeah... In a perfect world the law and the police are enough to dissuade any criminal, but you are a fool if you don't protect yourself. Sure a master criminal locksmith could find a way to hack my home alarm and steal my belongings but I doubt I have anything worth their time.

I'm more concerned about the crack heads and various other thieves that want to grab anything of value even if it is worthless to me (I've had someone break into my car to grab a case of CDRs).

Think of it like the script kiddies versus the master hacker... Either type of these groups aren't going to be dissuaded by laws if they don't think they are going to get caught.

If you think laws do stop all crime because of fear of punishment, I would like you to talk to my neighbors down the street who deal drugs because apparently that isn't dissuading them. (Even though we've reported them to police already!)

If yo live in a nice cozy suburb then I can see where you get this type of mentality, but when you are forced to live with criminality on a daily basis you start to realize that if the are people like these that know how to use computers, then I doubt they are going to have the same qualms either.

And yeah... I should move, but the neighborhood is nice if it weren't for the one set of neighbors and if I stick it out I might make quite a sum of money because of increasing property prices.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[budgenator]

locked doors don't do squat against bricks through a window
In Detroit, they'll steal the bricks off a building and sell them! More likely to get in a building it's as simple as stealing a car and driving it through the wall. I saw on tv a guy that had driven a stolen car through the wall of a liqueur store and was stuck inside, so he just got drunk waiting for the police to arrive.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[El Torico]

dada21, one minute I want to put you on my "friends" list, and the next minute, I want to put you on my "foes" list (grin).

The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot.
It does, because the potential cost is now higher.

There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work?
Actually, they do, but only if they are rigorously enforced. Locks serve mainly to delay an intrusion, thus increasing the chance of getting caught. Alarms serve to notify owners and police, which then can catch the intruder.

...where alarms aren't enough, a Colt 45 used once usually fixes that situation.
This is where the problem lies. People do not have the time or training to protect their property 24 x 7 and maintaining a private security force is expensive, so they have "contracted" authorities to provide the physical deterrent. There is a fundamental need for order to be maintained, and this is a core function of government.

Regulations against hacking might harm you more than they harm the "criminals."
I agree with you on this, but only because these regulations may be made by people who don't understand the issue or by people who misuse law as a weapon. Both are cases of bad government.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[markov_chain]

Guys, it's called the rule of law and every civilized country out there has figured out why it is important.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Look at studies of proportions people in jail vs. social and racial groups, you'll see what the real picture is.

First, the number of people in jail is a different thing than the number of people who commit robberies and violent crimes. In fact, most people in jail are there for nonviolent drug offenses. Second, I'm speaking to motivations, which cannot be determined by looking at races unless you believe race plays a significant role in motivating people and can statistically show how. Third, the most popularly cited study on the correlation I speak of was normalized for social groups as part of the analysis.

Get a clue.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[bberens]

Hammurabi's code had laws like "If you steal something form the temple, you will be put to death." A simple risk/profit analysis would indicate that stealing something from the temple is probably not worth it. However, 'hacking' on the internet is relatively low risk of getting caught and the punishments are relatively small. People will generally act within their own best interest and the legal ramifications are only one part of the consequences of action. In the case of home robbery, there's the shotgun blast to the face consequence on top of the legal ramifications. In the case of hacking, unless you hack the mob/FBI/CIA/IRS you're unlikely to find yourself in a 'car accident.'

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, y'know, there's a slight difference between anarchy-cum-law and a country running on gang warfare. Ok, you have some degree of anarchy and order in Somalia, but Africa in general is too corrupt for that to work out. I hope though that in time it will.

Besides: who said anything about anarcho-capitalism? Just because we don't want too many laws doesn't mean we have to have a complete anarchy. There are middle grounds too, like say when the US of A were founded.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not by any means a free market. It is just a market, in fact it is a severely restricted one.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[whoever57]

have an alarm on my house as well because if someone did break in without it, the police would come by and make a report, shrug and then leave.

You are lucky! In my city, the police no longer respond to alarms unless there is some other verification of the need to respond.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[MadEE]

This is untrue. The chances of the police responding in time to do anything is very slim. The main purpose is to alert the owner and other people nearby, thus increasing the risk of this particular robbery or crime. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, but they have neither the manpower or the will to prevent crime.

You are right alarm systems are largely useless. However my point is that the deterring factor of an alarm system is the risk of getting caught. It may be rare that police respond however, that small chance adds to the risk.

Relative to the general populace or to the criminal populace, this just isn't true. Locks are easy to pick, alarm systems can be bypassed, but very few criminals take the time to do either when there are easier targets.

Just because something is "easy" (picking quality locks is not easy), or can be done doesn't mean people have the skill to do it. Most criminals don't have those skills and if they did they would have legal career opportunities open to them. While there are exceptions to this most criminals are unskilled and unable to support themselves by other means.

Threat of punishment is a motivational factor, but surprisingly, not a very significant one. Studies have shown people in general believe they can get away with crimes without being caught.

I would really love to see a reference for that study. What I have seen, however is studies that people are far more willing to do crimes when they believe they will not get caught, which is quite different then what you are saying.

The main motivation for not committing them is actually a moral one. People do not feel justified in robbery. One of the strongest correlations with robbery and violent crime worldwide is wealth disparity.

Absolutely, and another correlations is education level. However I have never heard of a correlation between crime/education/wealth and morality. Could it be that when a person is desperate they will risk imprisonment because they have to eat where someone who has a skill wouldn't risk imprisonment? Laws, just as much as morality are at play here.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[david_g17]

"Oh, and locked doors don't do squat against bricks through a window. Locks generally only keep honest people honest - they are a trivial defense against people."

locks are necessary. Without locks, you can't charge someone with "breaking and entering" - a much more serious crime than "tresspassing".

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course hacking is profitable -- the laws of supply and demand cover this as any service or product. The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot. The nice thing about hacking is that if it ever becomes unprofitable or law enforcement starts to take it seriously, you can always become a security consultant.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[molarmass192]

Almost ... in reality whomever you try to hire for protection has far more incentive to divest you of all your wealth since there are no enforcement agency to enforce the "for hire" enforcement agencies. In anarchocapitalism, maximizing profits is king, so why settle for a few hundred a month at an added cost to my organization when I can simply take all your millions and put a bullet in your head at a cost of $1 to my organization?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You are right alarm systems are largely useless. However my point is that the deterring factor of an alarm system is the risk of getting caught. It may be rare that police respond however, that small chance adds to the risk.

Alarm systems draw attention that might lead to them being punished. Alarm systems alert both the home/business owner and neighbors increasing the chances one of them will grab a shotgun and come after them. They aren't afraid the police will stop them in most cases.

Just because something is "easy" (picking quality locks is not easy), or can be done doesn't mean people have the skill to do it.

No it doesn't, but usually there is no need. Most burglars just break the lock or door or window. And I taught my girlfriend to pick locks in five minutes. She managed with a little work to easily pick the average outdoor lock on our rental home. Most locks are not that hard to pick. The point, however, is that alarms and locks are deterrents, but not for the reasons you cite. Mostly it is a matter of convenience.

I would really love to see a reference for that study. What I have seen, however is studies that people are far more willing to do crimes when they believe they will not get caught, which is quite different then what you are saying.

I wish I had a handy reference for the one really good study on this I read, but in a pinch the book "Freakonomics" has a study in it that covers the basics of the point pretty well. (And it is a wonderful, quick read anyway. Pick it up.) Basically, most people don't think they will be caught if they try to commit a theft or murder. Adding obvious surveillance equipment is shown to be less effective than a sign that says, "please be honest, don't steal" in preventing theft.

Absolutely, and another correlations is education level. However I have never heard of a correlation between crime/education/wealth and morality. Could it be that when a person is desperate they will risk imprisonment because they have to eat where someone who has a skill wouldn't risk imprisonment? Laws, just as much as morality are at play here.

Local laws, relative punishments, the effectiveness and perceived effectiveness of the police, education, and wealth all show a less direct correlation with theft and violent crime than wealth disparity in the locality. This can be seen within localities and thus normalized for other factors as wealth disparity increases or decreases. The effects, for example, of very progressive inheritance taxes in northern Europe demonstrated a profound affect upon crime rates, even when the money was just collected and had not been used in socialist programs.

There is quite a bit of literature on the subject, particularly if you look at some of the research on corporate psychology. Companies invested a lot of money in the last few decades trying to figure out how to stop employees from robbing them from the inside and while the studies have largely been ignored, the consensus was clear. Don't pay a person's boss an order of magnitude more than them. Don't pay the CEO more than everyone else put together. Treat the employee ethically, and they respond in kind. Treat them in a mercenary fashion and the chances of their robbing the company increase a huge amount. Demonstrate you don't trust them through very restrictive and visible security and they are more, not less likely to steal.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[jschutzm]

THANK YOU! I agree with you! Jail and even death sentences don't deter crime as much as strong moral beliefs. It IS TRUE that most criminals did not consider the consequences prior to breaking the law. Do you think the shop lifters, car thieves, and gas station robbers REALLY carefully way the consequences? Do you seriously think they are saying to themselves: "On one hand I can get about $50 bucks from the register.. on the other hand.. I could get A) shot by the clerk or B) spend 6 months in jail" NO..they aren't Tougher laws won't do SH___ towards stopping hackers. People don't commit crimes PRIMARILY 'cause they A) feel it is morally wrong and B) have more the loose from getting caught then from profiting. -- So moral beliefs and social disparity have more to do with crime then sentencing. Hackers in other countries, I bet, don't think they are gonna get caught... and have probably convinced themselves that they are only preying on those that have money...so it's not really that wrong.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[TheHorse13]

Comment by TheHorse13 on November 29, 2006 12:45 pm
Is this really news to anyone? IRC botnets have been around for years and have been used for stealing for profit equally as long. Common sense tells you that you don't fear something that cannot induce consequences. Case in point, how are you going to press a guy in the middle of the congo for scamming you? U.S. domestic law?

How about we talk about how this has already been taken to the next level by hiring professional programmers who now offer encryption to hide the activity and a "be your own criminal" software package. In Russia, right now, you can buy a toolkit from the criminals that walks you through the setup of your very own criminal enterprise. For those interested, it's called, "WebAttacker ToolKit"

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[spun]

Funny, but on a more serious note, anyone who has read The Wealth of Nations knows that Adam Smith believed that free markets needed external regulation and order in order to remain free. Was he right? Who knows, but I'd like to see libertarian types stop using him as an example of someone who thought the free market needs no regulation.

Is this offtopic? Who knows, but I'll probably get modded offtopic anyway.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Somalia has laws. What they don't have is ORDER. Laws do not create order. Enforcement of laws does."

No -- EDUCATION creates ORDER.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

'A friend of mine who was a SWAT member on the Indianapolis PD for 20+ years (and spent the last 2 as an entry leader) has mentioned that doing a response to a home invasion call by the book according to many agencies and departments involves showing up and then checking your watch. You sit in the car for 5 minutes. THEN, you go see what's going on. The "

Bull.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Tanktalus]

Unfortunately, the regulations of /. have prevented me from purchasing mod points such that I may give my market (you) what it wants (-1, Offtopic).

(I do figure, however, that I'm about to get one ... and similar /. regulations will continue to prevent me from passing it on to you.)

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for the record... Selling pot isn't that profitable. :-)

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Milwaukee?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws making hacking illegal only add more gold to the pot.

How do they do that? By adding disincentives and risk to entry.

There are laws against breaking and entering, but do they work?

They have an effect, -- they add disincentives and risk to entry. Do they "work", as in eliminate the target behavior? No -- but they were not meant to do that. It is not the purpose of the law to govern individual behaviour -- we all have free will. It's sole purpose is to define how "bad" choices are to be dealt with after the fact. That does have the cited disincentive effect (with attendant rise of price and profitability to balance out that disincentive), but that isn't it's primary purpose.

Locks etc. are crime prevention; laws aren't.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[kz45]

"Really? And how do you know that mugging is bad? Because people have been mugged, and the lesson learned is "that is bad!" Some kids touch hot stoves and burn themselves, and the outcome now is parents who are more careful. Some kids stuck keys in outlets, and the outcome is very cheap outlet protectors (provided by the free market, not by some ridiculous one-size-fits-all government law)."

Are you serious?

There are certain things in life that are bad/harmful, but teach us a lesson (such as kids touching a stove). Other things we learn from others' bad experiences and should never have to go through ourselves (mugging, murder, rape, etc.).

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[cyberscan]

"Of course hacking is profitable -- the laws of supply and demand cover this as any service or product." I totally agree. Lok at spamming. There is so much moneyt in spam that it now swamps just about anyone's email box. Yeas, there are draconian penalties for spamming, and yes, people get caught. However people still do it because they make money at it, and many just do not think it is wrong.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Kijori]

Over here in England you can't shoot people for breaking into your home - you're not even allowed to hurt them more than is absolutely necessary. A lot of people leave doors unlocked when they're in the garden, and those that don't frequently have doors that could be broken into in seconds. We rely mainly on two things to prevent robbery: trying to create a social climate where robbery isn't acceptable, and the threat of being caught by the police if you do break the law. It works pretty well; I've only ever been robbed once (in 20 years) and the 2 kids that did it were quickly caught and sentenced to community service and enforced social service intervention into their home life.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[cyberscan]

"First of all the novelty of an alarm system is notification of the police, who job it is to *gasp* uphold the law." The alarm usually notifies a central monitoring company which in turn notifies the police. If a phone line to which the alarm iss attached is cut, or the burglary is a quick 30 second smash and grab job, then the alarm may prove to be useless. Car alarms for example are very useless unless the car is in its owners yard and makes a distinct sound. "There are plenty of professionals that can or profession demands the ability to pick locks, bypass alarm systems and assault a building in a manner that would make a gun have very little effect." There are many ways of opening licks that leave very little damage besides picking. Yes picking high security locks can be very difficult, however there are other quick ways of opening these locks such as bumping. Besides, one may be able to enter a room or vehicle without causing damage nor by manipulating a lock. I have entered buildings many times without doing either. Why spend 10 minutes screwing with a lock when one can enter the same room by going through a tiled ceiling and over a wall? Why pick a lock when one can lever the door, bump the lock, insert a bypass rod or even remove hinges from a door? If one is unconcerned with damages, there are many even quicker methods of entering a room. A sheetrock knife works wonders. There are quite a few people who make a good living in the illegal entry business. These entries can be made in the traditional brick and morter establishments or into computers or even both. "Perhaps the knowledge that maybe losing a chunk of your life to jail may put some second thoughts into these people." Jail may prove to be a motivational factor to a few people, but it is not to many. In the U.S., jail terms are much too long for many crimes committed, and the result of that is police, judges, and innocents get killed during the capture attempt. If I were a criminal, I believe I would much rather kill a cop than spend the rest of my life in prison. While the chance of getting caught is a deterrant for some, religious beliefs (even the worship of governmental law) is a deterrent for many, many others. Another deterrant is the ability to obtain wealth without breaking the law. A person working 10 hours a day and yet still living paycheck to paycheck or cannot obtain enough money to take care of a pressing need is more likely to take an avantage of an illegal wealth obtaining opportunity than someone who make a decent living. I have knowlege of how to enter building, pick locks, and hack computers as weel as other black arts. I obtained this knowlege not by attending any school but rather by going online and even buying books. I have also successfully demonstrated this knowlege many times. I can obtain much wealth by using this knowlege both legally and illegally. However, what prevents me from committing crimes is not the corrupt local, state, and federal government (all of which I despise), but rather my belief in YHWH. Even though the U.S. has the largest percentage of its population in prison, crime continues to grow (crime statistics are skewed in many ways). People ought to quit deriding those who believe in a Creator, since religous belief is a primary factor in keeping crime at bay.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[StikyPad]

There's almost no reason to pick a lock if theft is the goal. The only time lockpicking is useful is when you don't want evidence of your presence, otherwise a crowbar usually works just fine. Not much skill needed to use those. Also bumping works on more "quality" locks than you'd think, and there's no skill required for that either.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[techno-vampire]

the free market will provide a solution for a fee.

I take it, then, you'd like to live in the Kingdom of Id and live under their version of the Golden Rule; "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Peeteriz]

Exactly, the market will provide some solution.
Do look at the situation in Somalia (at least a year ago, before the islamists started returning order to the country), with the gunmen-for-hire as a major part of any business, especially anything somehow involving transportation through countryside.
I still would prefer a low quality law-order of a corrupt government than such anarcho-capitalism.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the US has carnage everywhere. On every single block there are people with pumpguns and assault rifles shooting each other.

The US has carnage because we are such a wonderfully diverse nation, and a very small segment of our society (roughly 11% counting the men only from those two groups between 14 and 29) commit over 85% of all criminal acts (violent acts & property crime included). If we transplanted the same population in your country, you would have crime numbers similar. Currently we have more people in prison than any other western nation and it barely keeps a lid on it. I shudder to think how bad it would be if we didn't have as many behind bars.

Want to see diversity in action? Camden, NJ - Detroit, MI - St Louis City, MO. Its okay, maybe you are a Canadian - your immigration laws will see you in the same boat in 25 years. Maybe you are from Europe - your immigration will see you in the same boat in 16-30 depending on where in Europe you are. Enjoy! Maybe just your kids get to enjoy the wonderful benefits of diversity! We all need more diversity, I mean, we wouldn't want that housing boom to stop as people attempt to move away from crime & thuggery, now would we? It would put a lot of imported illegal Mexicans doing construction out of work, which of course, we have to import to keep profits up during the housing boom, right?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[diersing]

Well, then we'll deem it the evolutionary market as a free market is free to evolve into whatever the people make of it.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[tehcyder]

the 12-gauge you keep loaded behind the bed

What, so your kids can't find it as easily?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[technococcus]

1) Some non-trivial percentage of the population doesn't have kids.

2) When I was growing up, there were always guns around. Generally speaking, they were unloaded, excepting the 9mm pistol my mom kept in her dresser, fully loaded. Regardless of the state (loaded, unloaded) of the firearms in question, my younger brother and I knew damn good and well that we were not to touch any of them without their express permission. We also knew safe gun-handling and firearms safety (which I advocate as the biggest preventer of gun violence and Accidental Discharges/Negligent Discharges. Knowing is 99% of the battle!). Example, to this day, if I pick up a gun, I open its breach, check it for clear, clear it if it is not clear, and decock the firing mechanism in a safe direction. Now the weapon is safe. Anyone who makes the decision to bring guns into their home has the responsibility to inform the other members of his or her household as to how to be safe with them. If I brought home a space heater, you bet I'd make sure my kids understood not to let it get too close to the walls, not to play near it, to make sure blankets and whatnot didn't end up near it, etc. I have this funny attachment to not having my property burn that makes me want to be safe and encourage others in the household to be just as safe. Same with guns. You make sure the kids understand them, you let them fire them at a range so they understand that they are VERY powerful and not toys, you instruct them in safety, and then you tell them not to touch them without you and never to discuss them with or around their friends. Your kids and yourself are now safe. In fact, all of you are a lot safer than you would be without a form of protection against that all-too-common-nowadays crime of home invasion.

So, yeah, my kids would know where it was, they'd know it was a pump and a safet selector away from being able to do horrific things to whatever it was pointed at, and they'd know they were most certainly not to touch it. In addition, they'd know that if they did HAVE to touch it, for whatever reason, to 1) open the breach, 2) work the action until all the shells were out of the tube and loader (this all presumes a pump-action), and 3) dry fire the weapon in a safe direction (usually the floor) and then either leave the breach closed and carry it muzzle-up, or lock the breach open and carry it muzzle-up. Yay safety, yay knowledge, yay no one innocent gets hurt.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[CrankyWorm]

You can shovel your lecture right into your own ass.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Foobar of Borg]

Or, perhaps, you are simply a blithering idiot who is too stupid to understand what is really going on.

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[tehcyder]

1. True, but what about friends' kids, nephews and nieces, Scouts doing bob-a-job? Also drunk friends, stupid relatives...my point being that you can't say there will never be anyone in your house who can access your weapons but shouldn't.

2. Your diligence is commendable, but I don't think that all parents are as sensible. When you have parents who are capable of leaving heroin around for their toddlers to eat (for example) do you think they can be trusted with a lethal weapon?

Re:I smell a business opportunity.

[Anonymous Coward]

See this is what happens when I read back old posts, I see total stupidity...

It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, but they have neither the manpower or the will to prevent crime.

Investigate crimes? So, the police should just sit on their ass in the police station until after someone is shot? Using this logic, we actually can use a lot fewer cops and save a lot of money. The goal of a police department is to "prevent crime". The problem is they are often undermanned and do not have the money to protect everyone and everything. There is some degree of calculation made; hence, you will see more patrol cars in higher crime areas. This helps them "prevent crime". Obviously, they find enough time to sit on highways and major roadways to write tickets for speeding. They will argue doing this helps "prevent crime" in the sense that the person won't get into an accident and kill or seriously injure another person. The fact is, they are preventing crime, just not the crimes we would like them to actually be preventing. (NOTE: They are also making a shitload of money doing this, and there are tons of theories about ticket quotas.)

Give them new authority

[suso]

Hackers can think whatever they want. The real problem right now is that the governments of the countries they live in don't care and don't do anything about it. Perhaps that's understandable since many of those countries have enough non-tech issues to deal with already. But I think that if that's the case, they just shouldn't be allowed on the internet yet. There really needs to be a bar for entry. I can't tell you how many applications we get for people using stolen credit card numbers and coming from IPs in Africa, Indonesia, etc. Fortunately, we check applications by hand and weed those out. But many hosting companies probably just accept them and create accounts, opening their systems to escalated privlige attacks.

I'm surprised we haven't started seeing vigilantes tracking down hackers and spammers. When governments can't handle things, the mob takes over.

Re:Give them new authority

[mcrbids]

Perhaps that's understandable since many of those countries have enough non-tech issues to deal with already. But I think that if that's the case, they just shouldn't be allowed on the internet yet. There really needs to be a bar for entry.

And, just how do propose to do that?

The Internet is an agreement to exchange digital information with previously agreed-upon protocols. Nothing more, nothing less. ANY node on the Internet is abstractly equal to any other. It's the World of Ends that gives the Internet its value! As with most things, it's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.


I'm surprised we haven't started seeing vigilantes tracking down hackers and spammers. When governments can't handle things, the mob takes over.

I'm surprised that you haven't recognized that the Realtime Blacklists are nothing but vigilante actions - whole swaths of the Internet blocked from communicating due to misbehavior...

What else would you call that?

Re:Give them new authority

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised we haven't started seeing vigilantes tracking down hackers and spammers. When governments can't handle things, the mob takes over.

I'm not. There's no money in it, but the penalties for being caught are just as severe. So unless you're being directly affected, there are some disincentives but not incentives - and if you are directly affected it is more likely that you will be caught.

Re:Give them new authority

[Moofie]

The best part about vigilante action is that we get rid of that pesky "due process" and "habeas corpus" nonsense. Heck, if I decide you're guilty, you're not really due any process at all, are you?

Your ideas fascinate me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Give them new authority

[mentrial]

Yay! Who is up for banning North Korea from the net?

Seriously now, that idea... Besides being technically and conceptually ludicrous, that's the equivalent of saying that people below certain IQ level should be banned from voting, writing or appearing on TV...

Hmm OK, maybe not a bad idea, better yet, lets isolate every country on its own "Internet" network, that way no country is ever going to bother other country with its religious/ideological/social/economical differences. So we should need some kind of passport to be able to visit other country's internet.

Re:Give them new authority

[hotdiggitydawg]

When governments can't handle things, the mob takes over.

Ain't that the truth. The Mob probably own most of the criminal hackers!

Re:Give them new authority

[siriuskase]

Hackers can think whatever they want. The real problem right now is that the governments of the countries they live in don't care and don't do anything about it. Perhaps that's understandable since many of those countries have enough non-tech issues to deal with already. But I think that if that's the case, they just shouldn't be allowed on the internet yet. s/countries/communities/

there are plenty of jurisdictions in civilized places where the government is more concerned with traffic and violent crimes. Should all these communities be banned from the internet? Of course not, just because a few people abuse a right or a priviilige doesn't mean the whole community should be banned. Even in lawless communities, the internet has positive uses that far outway the negatives

Re:Give them new authority

[suso]

Seriously now, that idea... Besides being technically and conceptually ludicrous, that's the equivalent of saying that people below certain IQ level should be banned from voting, writing or appearing on TV...

No, I didn't say people should be banned. I said counties should be banned if they don't meet certain requirements. Basically, if they don't have a policy for enforcing certain rules and authority, they should be banned. Its like anything else, for a nation to be admitted to the UN, they have to meet certain requirements, right?

Re:Give them new authority

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the GP was alluding to a somewhat more, ahem, complete and final solution to certain pesky problem users. I know I sure as hell fantasize about that.

Re:Give them new authority

[suso]

I know I sure as hell fantasize about that.

I really don't know what you are talking about. ;-)

Seriously though, hackers are just misguided. Spammers however....

Re:Give them new authority

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't say people should be banned. I said counties should be banned if they don't meet certain requirements. Basically, if they don't have a policy for enforcing certain rules and authority, they should be banned. Its like anything else, for a nation to be admitted to the UN, they have to meet certain requirements, right?

And who is going to enforce these requirements?

So some people should not have access to freedom of information because they live in a third world country?

BTW those people using the fraud credit card number are probably not the hackers but rather hacker's stupid clients. A good hacker does not get caught and are usually very educated; I beleive most of them are Americans.

Re:Give them new authority

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised we haven't started seeing vigilantes tracking down hackers and spammers. When governments can't handle things, the mob takes over.

Seriously though, hackers are just misguided. Spammers however....

Yes, spammers deserve retribution, as do their scammer variants. Enter anti-scammer vigilantes 419Eater...see http://www.419eater.com/

Re:Give them new authority

[mentrial]

You do know that countries have people inside right? Or are you suggesting that people in undeveloped countries should move to use internet?

HACK the PLANET

[hoy74]

or just the gibson.

Re:HACK the PLANET

[Zaphod2016]

Does your laptop have 128 MB of RAM? If not, you don't stand a chance against Penn Gillete's super-computor. He's a powerful wizard you know...

Re:HACK the PLANET

[Tackhead]

> or just the gibson.

Been there, done that.

Uplink is to cracking, what GTA is to car theft. Enough escapism to be fun, enough realism to make you very nervous when you're in the middle of a mission. The game came out in 2001, and was set in 2010. Judging from the headlines on Slashdot, we're about halfway there.

Oh for crap's sake..

[Rob T Firefly]

Being a hacker is not a punishable offense. If criminals are using so-called "hacker" skills in criminal pursuits, they're still criminals. Call them criminals.

I'd expect the OMG SCARY word "hacker" to be misused like this in Hollywood films and mainstream news, but not on Slashdot of all places.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[Anonymous Coward]

amen

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[B11]

[blockquote] Being a hacker is not a punishable offense. [/blockquote] Not yet anyways. But being a tinkerer and an "outside-the-box" thinker, non-comformist, etc is certainly NOT something being encouraged today, vis-a-vis things like the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc, etc. Kinda sad actually.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[Speare]

The 1980s called. They want their 'hacker' vs 'cracker' argument back.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[catmistake]

they're demonizing the word 'hacker,' why can't they just use 'black hats' or 'cybermafia' or something?

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[kaens]

He was just seeing if bbcode would work. Thinking outside the box and all. And tinkering.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[B11]

oops, should have checked if the preview button still worked. ;)

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[mentrial]

OK, I know most of you are going to hate me for this, but English is a live language, words change meaning constantly, get over it already. I myself don't like using the word hacker to describe a computer criminal, but I don't go around wrongly correcting people when they do.

Hacker is used by 99% (and I'm being generous) of people to describe a computer criminal. Is a synonym of computer criminal, according to most sources, including the Britannica (I can feel your hateful eyes on me now).

Words are just conventions, if 99% of the English speaking people (and even those who don't speak English) use Hacker as computer criminal, then it IS computer criminal. No matter what meanings it has previously had or what the 0.1% of an intelectual elite like to call themselves.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[value_added]

Being a hacker is not a punishable offense. If criminals are using so-called "hacker" skills in criminal pursuits, they're still criminals. Call them criminals.

An unfortunate analogy, but it may be worthwhile to note that being called a pedophile is to be branded a dangerous criminal, despite the fact that the meaning of the term isn't synonymous with child rapist and, thought crimes aside, is as neutral as being considered an audiophile, bibliophile or an Anglophile.

Or am I talking semantics?

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, he can use HTML. It's just that The Man is keeping him down.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[mackyrae]

The American Heritage Dictionary lists "one who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff" before "one who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file" in the definition for "hacker."

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[RAMMS EIN]

``The 1980s called. They want their 'hacker' vs 'cracker' argument back.''

They can have it if they give us people correctly using the terms.

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[Chas]

While I agree with this to a certain extent, we start running into issues like we do with "hate crimes".

Do you REALLY give a shit why a criminal does something?

If I kill you, does it matter that I:

A) Just felt a deep-seated need to kill SOMETHING
B) Found out you shagged my wife and decided to remove both your heads with Mr. .45
C) Needed drug money and killing you was faster than arguing you into handing over your wallet
D) Decided to kill you because of your race/nationality/creed/sexual orientation/social-strata/etc

In all cases, you're dead.

In all cases, I should be punished accordingly for murder/manslaughter.

Does it REALLY matter what in at least one of the cases, it might have been other than a DIRECT personal motivation?

Re:Oh for crap's sake..

[Rakarra]

You do not define what the term 'hacker' means. Hackers do not define what the term means. Society as a whole defines what words actually mean. If society decides that 'hacker' refers not only to someone who tinkers, someone who solves problems in unconventional ways but that the term also refers to the destructive cracker, then yes, that is what the term 'hacker' means. Give it up and fight a fight that is worthwhile and not already lost.

In the good ole days...

[Ingolfke]

Angelina Jolie, a bunch of punky but fun misfits, and I used to hack into evil businesses and expose their secret schemes to steal from the poor and opress the common man. We'd use holographic GUIs and paint our laptops... kids these days... well they've just ruined it all.

Re:In the good ole days...

[Bluesman]

Oh, come on. Back when they had Gibsons, hacking was a walk in the park. All you'd need to do was sit around and guess at typical passwords.

It's harder today, what with intrusion detection systems and ceramic baseball bats that will smash a boom box in nothing flat if you're caught.

Re:In the good ole days...

[lpcustom]

Everyone knows that movie was fake...I mean the Devil Book. The Unix Bible........it was way too small in the film, maybe they had the abridged version.

Re:In the good ole days...

[kippers]

Are you David Guest?

Re:In the good ole days...

[ferrgle]

Oh and Apple laptops at that - Oh dear I have watched it too much!

"Its got a 28.8 bps modem"

Hmm..

[El Lobo]

I would say that criminal hackers (those that make A LOT of profit using their talents for the dark)are (and always were) a minory. Most of the so called "hackers" are just people of all ages like you and me, that are just having the internet as a playground.

The new mercenaries

[Billosaur]

Hackers are the 21st Century equivalent of the mercenary. Pay them enough money and they will do what you want. As long as someone somewhere feels the need to crack a database or extract sensitive information from some business/person, there will hackers ready to answer the call. Crack down on them, and all you do is reduce their number, weeding out the weak ones, and leaving a highly competitive and lucrative market for the strong ones.

Re:The new mercenaries

[pilgrim23]

And the ones left after the battles,end up in control. When mercenaries are not paid, they usually exact tribute. When power resides in the Net, those who control the Net control.

Re:The new mercenaries

[espressojim]

And then, just like in real life, someone holds a gun to their head, and reality asserts it's ugly superiority.

Let me know how much use 'control of the Net' is when someone's curbing your ass.

For all of people's views of superiority, when it comes down to it, any two bit criminal can rub out just about anyone on a whim. (exception: people with their own large security force.)

Steep Learning Curve

[Non-CleverNickName]

I tried to become a hacker once, but I suck at reading the Matrix code.

Re:Steep Learning Curve

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the upgraded Da Vinci code.

Re:Steep Learning Curve

[dcam]

Learn perl. Think of it as an intermediate step.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I still consider myself a hacker, however, have i broken any laws recently? No, i don't break laws for what i do. I still go by the old definition of a hacker as being somebody who muddles with something computerish to see how it works and what it can do (and how you can break it). Unfortunately, that movie did more damage than all the hackers that came before it. It made hacking OMG SO KOOL LOLZORS!!!!

Any tool can be used for bad, a needle used to vaccinate a baby can be used to shoot heroin, a puppy can be raised to be a killer, a knife can cut a steak or someone's neck. These are only tools, simply because a criminal uses computer tools, he's a hacker. Does every robber who uses a police issue hand gun get called a cop? Every axe murderer a lumberjack? Tools are tools.

Btw, never do anything on your computer that you don't want to show up on wall street journal, cause there's a remote chance it could.

Re:Well

[otacon]

I'd have to say I share the same philosophy as you. While I have 'hacker' roots and a 'hacker' mindset, that doesn't mean I break into things that aren't mine and break laws. Not to say I couldn't, I just don't care to. Even when I was younger and some of the things I did to learn and experiement may have been questionable, I would have never done it for anyone else, it was all for my personal desire to learn, not a financial motivation.

Re:Well

[Pojut]

unfortunately, that desire to simply LEARN is what has slipped away and given rise to the new definition of the term hacker.

A true hacker desires KNOWLEDGE. Not power, not finances, KNOWLEDGE. That is the hacker's reward.

Not retarded WinNuke attacks (showing my age slightly), not stealing identities, not peeking at your hard drive...knowledge. The knowledge of how things work, why they work, what DOESN'T work, and what can be done to make them work BETTER.

Major Sites Cracked in the past couple days.

[Anonymous Coward]

...word is that several MAJOR adult sites got their membership(but not CC) databases compromised this weekend. 500k+ members on each site. I've seen the records, verified a login or two. Complete SQL dumps.
Honestly, freaked me the fuck out.
The lady(yes, lady) who did it still has access.
From what I've heard, of course.

Re:Major Sites Cracked in the past couple days.

[ezzzD55J]

...word is that several MAJOR adult sites got their membership(but not CC) databases compromised this weekend. 500k+ members on each site. I've seen the records, verified a login or two. Complete SQL dumps.
Honestly, freaked me the fuck out.
The lady(yes, lady) who did it still has access.
From what I've heard, of course.Why were you even surprised? Websites leaking their db's isn't exactly uncommon.

Re:Major Sites Cracked in the past couple days.

[Anonymous Coward]

1)Not a leak. To me at least, that implies an inside job. There was no insider
2)The person still has access. And is actually selling the lists on a subscription basis. That kinda of confidence is unnerving. Especially since the people who are buying them are, shall we say, not people you want to piss off.
3)I know sites get compromised. Lists get out. ScottTrade had one. So did lending tree. So did etrade. But rarely do they happen in this kind of rapid succession. At least from what I've seen.

Re:Major Sites Cracked in the past couple days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any links/IRC Channel? to news about this...

I know that we've already lost the war...

[Lord Kano]

The war for the meaning of the word "hacker", but come on now. If whatever you're doing is not for the satisfaction of the accomplishment, you're not really a hacker.

It's kind of like the distinction between a slut and a whore. Sluts do it because they enjoy it, whores do it for financial gain.

LK

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[jizziknight]

So you're saying hacker : slut :: computer criminal : whore? I'm not sure that's an analogy I'd want to use if I were a hacker.

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[just_another_sean]

Mmmmmmm..... Sluts.

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[IDK]

Hackers and crackers doesn't even do the same things.

The perfect analogy is that hackers build and modify houses, while crackers break into them (and maybe steal things).

Another analogy that works here is that both may use a crowbar, but only the robber is a criminal.

It's also the hackers who make the doors, so that the robberer will have more trouble breaking in.

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[Arcane_Rhino]

So...

A hacker : slut broke into a pornographic database.

Hmmm. This story just gets better and better.

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[Lost Race]

The hacker puts it back together after taking it apart to see what's inside.

The cracker takes any valuable parts and leaves a mess for someone else to clean up.

Re:I know that we've already lost the war...

[Raenex]

You're right, the war has been lost. "cracker" never caught on. Give it up already.

It's all about risk-reward

[Zaphod2016]

When it comes to (criminal) hacking, or any other illegal activity, the smart perp will consider the risk-reward of his behavior. Unless the potential payoff of a crime is significant, it simply does not make good economic sense to do it.

Example: say you offer me $100,000 to commit a crime which may carry a 10-year prison term. To me, such an opportunity is not worth the risk. Even at a low-wage job, I can earn $20,000 a year, $200,000 in a decade. Why would I sacrafice $200,000 of earning power (minimum) for a potential $100,000, to say nothing of legal fees, destroyed reputation and the horror of pound-me-in-the-ass Federal prison?

Back in the day, when I was a minor and thought I was invincible, I occasionally slipped between the gray and black, and did a few things that were not exactly kosher. However, my motive was not money, but rather the thrill of "showing them how smart I was". Had I been thinking clearly, or been subject to adult-level criminal law enforcement, I would have stuck to the benign aspects of hacking.

That said, would I ever "hack" illegally again? Yes- but only on the condition that I left my potential prison sentance with enough cash to retire early.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

When it comes to (criminal) hacking, or any other illegal activity, the smart perp will consider the risk-reward of his behavior. Unless the potential payoff of a crime is significant, it simply does not make good economic sense to do it.

This is a common perspective, but there is another motivation that comes into play. Most people are bound mostly by moral reasons to not commit crimes. What is interesting with computer crimes is they could easily have been a predicted consequence of globalization. Crime correlates strongly with wealth disparity. This speaks to both the risk/reward you mention and the ability of criminals to justify their behavior to themselves. Opening up the global market brings people with vast wealth disparity into the same arena. It would be surprising if a hacker in some poor country did not turn to crime which can pay him a year's salary in a day for a low risk crime and at the same time be robbing those fat Americans and Europeans born into extreme luxury while they have had to work long hours just to feed themselves.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[Zaphod2016]

Very true. If I lived in a developing nation, I'm sure I would jump at the chance to score $100,000- especially since my earning power would be nowhere near $20,000 per year.

As far as moral jusification goes, I argue that there is plenty of wealth disparity right here in the US to "justify" any criminal behavior a person might engage in. Especially if said criminal is already of an entitlement mentality.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As far as moral jusification goes, I argue that there is plenty of wealth disparity right here in the US to "justify" any criminal behavior a person might engage in.

You're missing the point. Greater wealth disparity correlates with increased rates of robbery and many other crimes. It's not a case of "is there enough wealth disparity?" It is a case of wealth disparity being an order of magnitude greater and thus predictably crime rates with regard to that disparity are higher. This is statistics and quantifiable.

Especially if said criminal is already of an entitlement mentality.

This is an attempt to apply a correlation to predict a given specific case. Specifics are useful for assigning blame or determining ethical responsibility. That is not what I'm trying to do and I don't see a lot of value in trying to do that unless you're looking at an individual case, at which point we should look to the facts, not statistical likelihood.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[Zaphod2016]

Greater wealth disparity correlates with increased rates of robbery and many other crimes.

The United States does indeed have a high crime rate and large wealth disparity, which fits the above theory. However, I also came across another factoid which suprised me:

Having a resident population of just over 500, and millions of tourists every year, Vatican City has the highest crime rate per capita of any nation on earth, with penal offences at 133.6% in 2002.

Of course, if I understand you correctly, your point was that International wealth disparity is even greater than that within the US, and therefore, increased globalization results in increased (property) crime. It "makes perfect sense" to me, but I'm having trouble finding the stats to back it up.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Of course, if I understand you correctly, your point was that International wealth disparity is even greater than that within the US, and therefore, increased globalization results in increased (property) crime. It "makes perfect sense" to me, but I'm having trouble finding the stats to back it up.

Let me clear up a few points. I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm specifically talking about theft and violent crimes. Make drinking beer a crime in Ireland and try to enforce it and it will have the highest crime rate in the world. Since laws are not uniform, we have to limit this to particular crimes.

Also, there are many factors to these crime rates that need to be normalized. For example, are citizens armed? Are drugs criminalized or a health care issue? What is the rate of socialism and job security? What is the rate of employment? All these factors are important and correlate to some degree.

The best studies are usually within a single country or region which is already normalized for the above factors. When wealth disparity changes, what happens to theft and violent crime rates? Studies have pretty well established the correlation in these circumstances. It is a bit of a jump to extrapolate an online community where that is the only interaction, but if you ascribe to the motivational theories I mentioned, you'd predict even higher rates of these crimes based upon wealth disparity between online individuals. As far as I know, there is no data to prove one way or another if those rates are higher since it would require finding a significant number of said criminals and putting together the numbers. It seems to be supported by the evidence so far, but there is not enough of it to claim it as support for the theory.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[Mad Marlin]

Let's say you have a 10% chance of getting caught stealing that $100,000, which means a 90% chance of getting away with it. Let's say you have a 100% chance of keeping that $20,000 a year job for as long as you want it, or some other one of equal value. Let's say that you will get ten years in jail for getting caught. Ignoring interest, inflation, morality, etc., you have a 10% chance of losing $200,000, and a 90% chance of gaining $100,000. The expected return is therefore $90,000 - $20,000 = $70,000. Basic probability theory says you should try to steal the money. It will beak even if you are making $90,000 a year.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[pipingguy]

That said, would I ever "hack" illegally again? Yes- but only on the condition that I left my potential prison sentance with enough cash to retire early.

So it's OK to trade-off time and respect (self and others') for the cash payoff in the end? I don't quite get this retirement plan.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[Zaphod2016]

Show me a fortune, I'll show you a crime.

Everything else is semantics.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[ShooterNeo]

Well, there's another element to this. 10 years of imprisonment including violations of one's person such as possible rape, years of experiencing fear and other psychological pressures, as well as other pressures since a human being (the guards) control you have their own economic value.

If a private corporation beat you up ONCE you could sue for a tens of thousands of dollars. If a company locked you in a cage and anally violated you I suspect the judgement for the 'worth' of this pain and suffering to be several million dollars. Let's be conservative and say that 10 years of pain and suffering, wrongly inflicted by an entity that can be sued (unfortunatly, the government usually cannot - otherwise all those people who were falsely imprisoned should be able to sue) is worth 1 million dollars.

10% of 1 million is $100,000. It isn't worth it.

Ironically, it most certainly IS worth committing white colar crime across state lines such as fraud and securities violations. Typically you can make several million doing this, and this experience of being imprisoned is in federal facilities without bars or guard towers.

Re:It's all about risk-reward

[tehcyder]

That said, would I ever "hack" illegally again? Yes- but only on the condition that I left my potential prison sentance with enough cash to retire early.

As a word of advice for the future, don't use this answer at a job interview.

H(Cr)acker?

[PeterAitch]

Well, amongst technical folk, I thought the term was cracker.

I would have looked it up on Wikipedia (perhaps even something clever like "Hacker Technical Controversy") but I've heard that this source is considered inherently unreliable by some. As a non-expert, I wasn't impressed and so I'm still none the wiser.

Time for cheese and crackers (here in the UK).

Re:H(Cr)acker?

[Pojut]

To me, a cracker does exactly that; attempt to "crack" or bypass the security in a system or program. TO ME, that is it and that is all. The minute they do something with that access, they are no longer a cracker.

Re:H(Cr)acker?

[Anonymous Coward]

what'd you call me?

Re:H(Cr)acker?

[Pojut]

a lightly salted tasty treat that goes well with cheese and various kinds of dip

Feds & Prosecuters don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago we filed a case with the FBI over an issue where a spammer hacked into our system. We gathered logs and had details on exactly where they came from and where they were operating. In this case it was an American. We had overwhelming evidence of credit card fraud, hacking major networks, as well as computer tampering and lots of monetary damage and interruption of e-commerce. We did most of the work -- the FBI basically collected the information we provided and did little investigating of their own, and then presented the case to the attorney general in two separate jursidictions, at which point our case was blown off. No wonder the hacker/spammers aren't scared. The authorities are apathetic and unmotivated to prosecute people in these fields when they clearly break the law. The exception seems to be if you're a child who has annoyed a very large corporation.

I'm safe...

[Shawn is an Asshole]

I have a hacking permit.

More like....

[krell]

It's more like the difference between flammable and inflammable. I sure learned that one the hard way.

Hacking costs BILLIONS

[Shohat]

Quite frankly, I don't understand why there is almost no active lobbying for harsh laws towards hacking. Just think about it - When launching an online server, be it an an application server , gaming or communication server , a hosting service or a website - what is your most major concern after the development is over(even if the development was done with it in mind )?
Security. The FEAR of getting your server hacked pretty much doubles the development cycle, and is around 70% of the patches and fixes issued after it is launched. It's retarded that not having enough security = invitation for being hacked. Sleeping with the windows (no pun intended) open and getting a "I walked around your house and took a shower, don't forget to close your windows tomorrow night" letter on the next morning in case of a white hat or "I stole your stereo and PS2, why the fuck you left the windows open" in case of a black hat, is how the internet works these days, and it needs a major fix.

Re:Hacking costs BILLIONS

[Xentor]

I bet I know why there's no lobbying group against black-hats...

Every time they put up an online petition, their site gets cracked and replaced with goatse.

Re:Hacking costs BILLIONS

[g00p]

Harsh Laws & Penalties?

Dude, even in the UK you get more in jail for DDOS than you do for statutory rape.

ahem.

if people aren't put off by that, then maybe we should bring in the death penalty for port scanning or something? YEAH lets lobby that one, good idea mate.

Wow....

[hendersj]

The tag ("duh") really drives the point home. Obviously those who are engaged in any illegal activity aren't afraid of getting caught. If they were, they wouldn't engage in the activity - or they're just plain stupid. Maybe instead of being "from the they-are-masters-of-disguises dept." this one should've been "from the stating-the-bleeding-obvious dept."

Indeed...

[Giorgio Maone]

The motivation has changed... (sorry gerv, I couldn't resist)

Lawyers not afraid of "being caught" either

[multisync]

And dentists. Not to mention teachers, bus drivers, auto mechanics, policemen and politicians. They're all not afraid of "being caught!"

Maybe they're not afraid because there is nothing illegal about being a hacker, or a dentist, or a cop. It's just that some hackers, and cops, and politicians do illegal things. That makes them criminals, not hackers.

No, no, it's "Haxor the Planet!"

[Cctoide]

I think I remember the P-P-P-Powerbook having that feature...

Words change

[Moraelin]

Welcome to the real world: words change meanings continuously. "Thing" once meant a council meeting (waay back in the norse times), now it mean, well, "thing". "Gay" once meant cheerful/happy, then it meant "homosexual", and now it's in the middle of becoming just "uncool". Etc.

That's how we ended up with so many languages. As a species we have a sort of a "Babel tower" mechanism built in. Get two communities isolated for long enough, and even starting from the same language you end up with two new languages or dialects. Each of the two changed words independently, and eventually you end up with the whole language of each not even resembling the language of the other. (Don't believe me? English and Greek both evolved from the same Indo-European roots.)

People hear some cool new word, or a new way to use an existing word, or some wisecrack and latch to it. And if it gets enough followers, there you go, you have a new word or a new meaning for a word.

Some cool kid uses, say, "twink" in a MMO once for someone buffed or equipped beyond the means of a normal player that level. Some people hear it, like it, and start using it too. Repeat a few iterations, and next thing you know it becomes the new primary meaning of that word in relation to MMOs.

And so it was with "hacker" too. Except this time it was also boosted by a whole generation of clueless journalists, who promptly bombarded everyone with their new meaning. Everyone has had it hammered into their heads that "hacker" doesn't mean the old-style "guy who really likes computers and doing amazingly hard/low-level stuff", but, yes, basically "high tech criminal".

As early as the end of the 90's I've had the surprise to hear even computer engineers using it that way. Yes, literally. I was for example at some training back then and the guy teaching goes, "anyone knows what a 'hacker' is?" Me: "Someone who really loves computers and programming?" Him: "Nope, a criminal breaking into other people's computers." Go figure.

So, way I figure it, we might as well let go. That battle is lost, and we don't even have the means to fight it. For every time you tell someone "no, no, no, 'hacker' was never supposed to mean 'criminal'", they'll promptly have a dozen TV show hosts, pseudo-tech journos, etc, hammering the opposite right back into them. That word is lost. By now it's not just "mis-used", it simply _is_ the new meaning of the word.

Give up, move on, find another one.

Re:Words change

[RAMMS EIN]

``Welcome to the real world: words change meanings continuously.''

Yes, but these are not just any words, they are technical jargon words. Part of the reason such jargon exists is to more clearly define how certain words and concepts relate. "Harddisk" does not refer to CD-ROMs, even though a CD-ROM is hard and a disc. "Computer" is not the same as "PC"; there are lots of computers that aren't PCs. Similarly, there are lots of hackers who aren't criminals.

Unfortunately, the mainstream press has adopted the word "hacker", but under a different meaning. This leads to confusion, because people will assume that anyone described as a hacker is a criminal, whereas the person using the word might have meant it in the jargon sense. This, of course, is painful for actual hackers, as their hard-earned title of honor becomes a social stigma, a source of prejudice and suspicion.

To me, using "hacker" to mean computer criminal is like using "doctor" to refer to the people who performed lethal experiments on Jews in the second world war. Sure, some of those were doctors, but they are not representative of all doctors, and put the profession to shame. It's the same with computer criminals and hackers.

Re:Words change

[Moraelin]

Yes, but these are not just any words, they are technical jargon words. Part of the reason such jargon exists is to more clearly define how certain words and concepts relate. "Harddisk" does not refer to CD-ROMs, even though a CD-ROM is hard and a disc. "Computer" is not the same as "PC"; there are lots of computers that aren't PCs.

Very insightful and true... if you're a techie. For the rest of the population, though, it's just another word, subject to the same rules and changes as the rest of the language.

Re:Words change

[Hoi Polloi]

You've lost the war of numbers. The vast majority of the population understands hacker to mean a criminal and no amount of arguing is going to change that. Another example, the word jihad technically means a personal struggle against spiritual obsticles but, at least in the West, has come to mean a violent struggle.

Re:Words change

[RAMMS EIN]

``Very insightful and true... if you're a techie. For the rest of the population, though, it's just another word, subject to the same rules and changes as the rest of the language.''

I bet, though, that most occupations have jargon words that have very specific meanings inside that occupation, but are much more loosely defined, if at all, outside that occupation. I hope that people will understand that taking a word from a jargon and entering into mainstream language with a different meaning does not aid understanding, and that if this results in a title of honor coming to mean "criminal", this hurts a lot.

Not living in an English-speaking community means I cannot come up with any good examples, but I hope you get the point.

Re:Words change

[Moraelin]

Oh, I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't change that that's how it works. That's all I'm really saying. It may be unfair, it may be stupid, it may hurt a lot, but that word is still lost anyway.

And yeah, it's happened to other professions too. English is also not my mother tongue, and I don't live in an English-speaking country either, but I think I can come up with a few examples off the top of my head.

E.g., "butcher" is a very honourable profession normally (at least unless you ask a vegan;), yet it became used for such titles as "The Butcher Of Prague" for Reinhard Heydrich. I'm sure most honest meat merchants wouldn't feel too honoured to be compared to one of the biggest and most hated murderers in history.

E.g., "shaman" or "witch doctor" were very important and respected positions in many tribes. They weren't just the priests, but also the keepers of knowledge of their people, and often had various justice-related roles too. Seriously, they filled a very important social and cultural role in their communities. Now it's a synonim for a charlatan or con artist, with an additional conotation of stupidity/ignorance/gullibility/superstition/pseud o-science.

E.g., somewhat in the other direction, "slave" came to be used as basically "the submissive one in a kinky/depraved BDSM relationship". I'm sure that some people whose ancestors (or sometimes relatives they knew, as slavery isn't yet 100% extinct) were kidnapped, sold into slavery, mis-treated, and occasionally killed... well, would find it less than flattering to think of that suffering stripped of all its meaning and associated with just someone being horny and (depending on your morals and/or bigotry) depraved.

Etc.

Re:Words change

[swillden]

Another example, the word jihad technically means a personal struggle against spiritual obsticles but, at least in the West, has come to mean a violent struggle.

My understanding is that it actually means both. The "Greater Jihad" is the non-violent, internal struggle for personal righteousness, and the "Lesser Jihad" is the violent struggle against oppressors of the faithful.

Re:Words change

[Sancho]

"negative reinforcement" is often used by laymen to sound smarter when they mean "punishment." In fact, in Psychology, "negative reinforcement" is something of an oxymoron.

In vector physics, "acceleration" has a very different meaning from the general use of the word.

Specialized mathematicians have different meanings for various words like "product" (because you can be talking about several different types of arguments, such as scalar, vector, matrix, etc).

Generally, when you're talking to a specialist, they will understand the terms as they apply to their field, but they probably also understand the lay definition. When you're talking to some random person on the street, they probably only understand the lay definition. What's of most interest (to me, anyway) is how these changes get started.

Re:Words change

[Moraelin]

If we're talking generally about why word meanings change, it's basically what I've said way up in the thread: because people like cool new ways of saying things.

If we're talking about how "hacker" changed meanings, my (uninformed) guess is, basically:

1. Because we nerds are a breed that other people don't understand.

Your average nerd (and it's pretty much one of the standard symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome too) has a narrow focus of interest, which he pursues in depth and just for the heck of it. Someone can be fascinated by computers, or physics, or maths, or middle east history, or internal combustion engines, or whatever, and dedicates a lot of time, energy and plain old work to that end. Just because that's, for him or her, its own reward. Finding out some new cool algorithm is for a "hacker" (in the old meaning of the word) its own reward.

For Joe Sixpack and Jane Promqueen that just doesn't add up. Joe Sixpack and Jane Promqueen do such work only because they have to, only as means to other tangible gains. Be it for a paycheck, or to be accepted in the local circle of cool guys, or to save some money, or whatever. Doing maths just for maths sake, just doesn't compute to Joe Sixpack. Where's the payoff? What do you want to gain from it? When do you stop from doing all that study and actually go gain something from it?

And when no rational reason is obvious, then average Joe Sixpack and Jane Promqueen go on to imagine some hidden payoff or agenda. Be it the warlock (read medieval guy who likes to read) working to summon demons, or Dr Frankenstein creating a monster, or the "hacker" actually being into breaking into banks, that's the kind of motivation that Joe and Jane just _have_ to assume, to have a picture that makes sense. If you remove that nefarious motivation from the picture, they're left with something absurd and nonsensical by their standards.

2. Because a ton of "script kiddies" were more than obliging to perpetuate that nefarious image.

We're talking almost invariably about people with less technical skill than my cat when it walks on the keyboard. They couldn't find their own ass with a map, written instructions, and a whole roll of toilet paper. Without running someone else's scripts, they'd be a non-entity.

But they're invariably also the kind of insecure and complexed troll who'd do anything for attention, or to prove how l33t they are. The same kind who'd troll a forum or break a window just to get _some_ attention. And they were very quick to proclaim themselves "l33t hackers" and leave a trail of destruction to "prove" their l33tness. For every real "hacker" working hard to implement a better caching or pooling algorithm, there was a "l33t hacker" leaving a trail of defaced sites to prove his "l33tness."

And Joe and Jane, even those working in the media, found in them their missing puzzle piece to make their mental image make sense. Their confirmation that, ah-ha, all those guys hacking code at night were up to no good, after all.

Re:Words change

[Kattspya]

Welcome to the real world: words change meanings continuously. "Thing" once meant a council meeting (waay back in the norse times), now it mean, well, "thing". "Gay" once meant cheerful/happy, then it meant "homosexual", and now it's in the middle of becoming just "uncool". Etc.

Are you sure about the etymology of the word thing? Ting is a word in both Norwegian and Swedish. In Swedish it means at least two different things. It either means ting as in council (very archaic) and ting as in thing which is slightly archaic. I'm not sure if the Norwegians have a second meaning but ting as in council still applies to this day.

Re:Words change

[Moraelin]

Well, at least that's the etymology I've heard of. I'm not a qualified linguist, I'm just a guy who reads a lot of useless bits of info, and then remembers less than half of it, you know? :)

But the version I've heard has it the English getting it from the Norse, during the Viking invasions, along with a bunch of other words. Either way, even in your example, it changed from ting=council in the old times to ting=thing in less old times. So I'd guess at least for Swedish that change of meaning holds true.

Re:Words change

[Anonymous Coward]

You've lost the war of numbers. The vast majority of the population understands hacker to mean a criminal and no amount of arguing is going to change that.

And the approx. same number of people understands "hard drive" to mean "the box under the TV-thingie"... Are we to throw away good technical terms like "hacker, PC, CPU, hard disc, CD-ROM drive", and instead use the majority terms of "Computer guy, hard disc, thingie, other thingie, cup holder" instead?

Re:Words change

[Anonymous Coward]

But the version I've heard has it the English getting it from the Norse, during the Viking invasions, along with a bunch of other words. Either way, even in your example, it changed from ting=council in the old times to ting=thing in less old times. So I'd guess at least for Swedish that change of meaning holds true.

The argument is the other way around. Ok, I'm from Denmark, now Sweden, but the word is the same here. We agree that the word probably came from the vikings "ting", what we DON'T agree on is that it changed meaning from council to "stuff". The word means (and still means) both things in danish/swedish, both "en ting" = "a thing" and "folketing" = our government.

These two meanings are so far from eachother that I don't belive that one developed from the other. More likely they came from different places accidentally using the same word for different things (like the english word "sex" didn't come from the swedish word "sex" = "6").

Re:Words change

[Moraelin]

Well, the way I remember that etymology (but again, I'm not an expert), it actually made some sense to link them, because the connection came through the "thing" which was discussed/debated/decided at that assembly or council. I.e., people started with thing=council, and from there eventually also used thing=that which had been decided or discussed at the council. And at that point you already have a limited form of thing=stuff. From there it takes a smaller leap to apply it to stuff that hasn't in fact, been discussed at a council or related to a council in any way.

Whether that's actually true or believable, I wouldn't know. It sounds sorta believable to me, but then since I'm not a linguist, it doesn't really say much.

Risks?

[BobSutan]

Very little risk you say? What about this guy?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/11/boarding_ pass_h.html

Re:Risks?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

His crime was embarrasing someone in power. This is always a risky proposition.

Indentity Theft

[Deliveranc3]

I think everyone on Slashdot knows that if you NEEDED to make a few million dollars in a month your best bet is identity theft, sell a few people's houses and you're rich.

It's low risk, technically simple but you hurt a very specific person who you have to learn a lot about.

It's a bit scary how easy it would be to make money though identity theft.

But considering Slashdot's heavy Linux "Give back" ethical system and hoping it's somewhat indicitive of creative techies everywhere hopefully we'll find a solution before it gets out of hand.

Fear is reasonable.

[Frozen Void]

Correction: Stupid Hackers Not Afraid Of Being Caught.
There is still a risk despite all the proxies,routing,SSH and secure encryption.A person underestimating risks is more likely to get caught.

Yup, I'll agree with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much exactly why I left the scene. 10 years ago I was writing articles for the zines. Friends and I were hacking and having fun on IRC. We did it because it was fun and exciting; a challenge. More and more though, I started noticing things changing fast. People were getting busted more often because they were getting lazier. The whole money thing definitely came into play on many occasions.

It's no fun anymore. Granted I am older now and program for a living, so I get to do my own hacking here legally. The scene itself though, imo, is way too dangerous to have fun in anymore or have any kind of involvement.

Yes and no

[Moraelin]

Yes and no. What "jihad" may mean in day to day usage is one thing, but what it means in the religious context of the Koran is an obligation of all good muslims to defend a fellow muslim against a non-muslim aggressor. By force of arms, if it's an armed aggression. Admittedly, it's still _not_ the "aggressive terrorism against western freedom and democracy" that western media mis-represents it as. But it's not quite the generic neutral word for "struggle" either.

Same, if you will, as "communion" may simply mean "association; fellowship" or "interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication" in layman's speak, but it holds a very speciffic meaning in the context of the christian church. You may not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ when you just meet with a few pals, but when you're talking about "communion" in a church context, it wouldn't be a communion without those. Yes, technically it's still just derived from the layperson meaning, as in "communion with God", but nevertheless, it becomes a very specialized term with a very well defined meaning.

And so it is with "jihad" too. It's not just a random word picked on by the western media, but something with a very clearly defined meaning and requirements. It's practically jargon.

Again, admittedly, the western media did distort and mis-represent the word, making it sound like some aggressive nut-case crusade when actually the obligation is just one of mutual defense. That's a very big distortion of meanings and intentions there. In that, I do see the western media guilty of misinformation indeed.

But it's not just a fabricated buzzword, either. And there is some reason why it's translated as "violent struggle" too.

Smashing The Stack For Fun And Profit

[nexus9k]

"Years ago it was hackers who were doing it for the bragging rights, now it's the criminals."Aleph One's "Smashing The Stack For Fun And Profit" http://www.phrack.org/archives/49/P49-14 is already a decade old, and I guarantee that "hackers" were using PBXs, ROLM systems, CNA, etc for profit well before then.

Hacker vs. Cracker

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like folks ought to be checking The Jargon File http://catb.org/jargon to get their definitions of hacker and cracker straight. Or, if you don't like that, try Wikipedia's definitions of hacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker and cracker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(computing). Hacking is not a crime. Cracking is a crime. Just because a few journalists and Slashdot readers are clueless doesn't change the meaning of the words. Those same clueless folks probably insisted (wrongly!) that the 21st century started in the year 2000.

These people are NOT "Hackers"

[CrossChris]

Slashdot of all places should know the difference! A hacker writes code - he/she "hacks" - I "hack". The guys breaking into other peoples' computers are "Crackers" - as in breaking something.