Slashdot Mirror
I Was a Teenage Hacker
HotWired Washington Bureau Chief Declan McCullagh reveals
the sordid truth about how he spent his teenage years in this article published by IntellectualCapital.com. But Declan is not nearly
as sympathetic to the current generation of crackers (who will continue to be called "hackers" in the non-geek press no matter
what you or I say) as the headline would lead you to believe. Here's a quote: "Oh, I know. I have become a humorless curmudgeon who cannot appreciate
hackerdom's stellar exploits when I see them...."
They used to break into buildings and pull off
amazing 'hacks'. Mostly by college kids. This was
way before anything was codable. The term hacker then moved on to people also breaking into computers. Bite me!
The cracking scene in the early eighties was a whole different ball game than what most of these angst ridden wannabes are pushing. Maybe the underground should give their collective heads a shake and figure out who they are.
I support hacking, i don't support malicous intent though, to call those that would cause harm or inconvenience to someone else a cracker is an insult to me. If you want a name for them start with a derivative of some cave dwelling invertibrates scientific name since most of them are spineless creatures anyway.
People who use Back Orifice or rootkits are NOT hackers or crackers. They are lame-ass script kiddies who wouldn't know what hacking/cracking really implies.
-- toolie
I mean, give me a break! He calls this investigative reporting?
That's *exactly* what investigative reporting is (Or part of it anyway): Talking to as many people as possible, knowing 99.9% won't have anything useful or will try to bullshit you. This is the only way to find that golden piece of information you could never have found any other way.
I went to college with Declan at Carnegie Mellon. He was an outspoken member of Student Goverment. His skills lie in communication and writing. I highly doubt he was a teenage hacker, but clearly he knew many people who were. He has associated with enough people of technical prowess to be able to write about it rather intelligently.
I get a kick out of reading his articles, because I knew him. But I don't buy into his attempt to gain credibility by making up some fictional past.
Real credibility is judge on current works and perspective, not some attempt to make up some common history with one's audience.
I mean, give me a break! He calls this investigative reporting?
That's *exactly* what investigative reporting is (Or part of it anyway): Talking to as many people as possible, knowing 99.9% won't have anything useful for you or will try to bullshit you. It's tiring work but its the only way to find some piece of truly valuable information you could never have found any other way.
I mean, give me a break! He calls this investigative reporting?
That's *exactly* what investigative reporting is (Or part of it anyway): Talking to as many people as possible, knowing 99.9% won't have anything useful for you or will try to bullshit you. It's tiring work but its the only way to find some piece of truly valuable information you could never have found any other way.
Nothing wrong with elitism as long as you're part of the 31337.
I personally don't truly mind anything that differentiates me from the mindless masses.
The principle of aggrandizement is the fundamental law of every government. - Frederick the Great
Hacker was someone that wrote code and/or made
their way into systems. Under hacker you also
had a special group of people called Social
Engineers. Some of the SE's were quite good like
burns.
Crackers broke copyright stuff for the win32
crowd. The win32 crowd were heavy into warez
and needed ereet people that could do courier
work for them. There were also many crackers
doing useful things like popping the top on
some big encryption. I think calling these lazy,
no talent morons that just learned how to type
make papasmurf on their fresh redslackbian
install while IRCing as root is disrespectful
to the crackers. Real crackers actually display
some sort of intelligence. I know crackers that
call themselve crackers (like a safe cracker?)
and all they do all day is sit around trying to
do things like learn how UPC codes at their
supermarket work.
There were these morons that stole code, hex
edited binaries and put there names in there,
and other lame stuff that lazy people do. We
usually called them morons.
see http://www.moron.com for TersIan's take
on this.
Lately those people
are being called script kiddies. If the particular
moron is afraid to run the pop3 exploit and
only dos attacks machines (specifically smurf),
they are called packet monkeys. The dork that
runs antionline was a packet monkey. On IRC they
call them IRC Warriors!!!!. The funny thing is
that I think they like being called that. They
are just that dumb.
What no one seems to remember is that
these losers were all windows users. The dorks
that take over IRC channels. They were perfectly
happy using windows because they didn't have to
think. That all changed the first time one of
these losers tried to use a lame win32 mIRC
exploit on a linux user, and the linux user
knocked them down with da ping o' death. That
raised the bar. Then all these moron channel
takeover dweebs (that take over channels all
day for fun in the same way that you or I would
play quake) decided to learn just enough linux
to compile exploits. Then they learned about
shells. Then they learned about bugtraq, and so
on. Now these same morons are breaking into
websites.
Some of the website defacements at least
make me smile. My personal favorites are the
LAPD, ValuJet and the Spice Girls. Six Flags was
pretty funny. But when some dork breaks into
www.nooneevervisitsthissite.com and puts up a list
of shoutouts and demands in 3r33t hax0r sp34ch,
I'm not very impressed. Lets see someone get
www.ibm.com and post a list of what all the IBM
VP's make. Now THAT would impress me.
As for the morons that are to lazy to learn, lets
not call them crackers. That's to good for them.
Lets just call them morons.
I wonder where all the hunters are today. --Daffy Duck
Actually hacker goes back further than "computer" hacker. There was phone hackers before that and I believe it can be traced even further back.
...since everybody else seems to be talking only about `hacker' and `cracker' :-)
Well, although I've never heard the word `hacktivist' before, I think he's using the wrong word (`black-hat hackers') here. Sure, those hackers _are_ black-hat, but using such an `inside' term while so many `outside' terms in the same article becomes a little weird...
Well, if they weren't trying to stop unauthorized access attempts, what were they trying to stop? The whole point of security is stopping unauthorized access, isn't it?
So it's accepted for some sites, but not others? Oh, how nice. Where would he draw that line? Who determines if Burma's military junta is a more legal target than NY times?
Oh, here he refuses to differentiate. Really consistent policy, don't you think?
If you classify cDc as veteran hackers, and BO as a good program (as this seems to imply), you're really far out. BO just set the focus on trojans, it's really a BAD program. BO2K is no better, at least it crashed on the Win95 machine I tried it on. I wonder if he has even tried it.
IMHO, this article contains too many half-errors and self-contradictions to be taken seriously. (Well, probably this comment does, too :-) )
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Okay... so I went to Carnegie Mellon (CMU) in Declan's era too... *chuckle*. I can't comment on his past since I wasn't around him in middle/high-school, but yes, while he was at CMU, I'd agree his prowess was in the political/journalistic/communications arena.
:-)
Even if I didn't always agree with the goal, he -could- get people motivated.
-Phyxis
PS: Yeah, after CMU, I kinda dropped off the face of the earth for a while.
heheheh
Because this always come with a glamouring of the crackers. Re-read the article if you don't believe me.
That's true, but often "hackish code" refers to code that is too clever for its own good, but at the same time, all the other solutions are twice more awful.
However, it's irrelevant how old timer programmers used the word. The people who broke into computer systems used to call themselves hackers.
So: on one hand you have gurus that contributed to shape the computing world (Linux is only one of their latest achievements) belonging to a communauty dating back to the 60s. They call themselves "hackers". On the other hand, they are a bunch of morons with nothing more constructive to do, than intrudes systems belonging to others. They call themselves "hackers". And now you say, it's is the complete idiots who are right. That's ridiculous. Please go back to your 2600 sites.
The people who used to break copy protection schemes on software were called Crackers.
Yes they are "software crackers". They break protection from programs. The intruders, are "systems crackers". They break the protection from systems. Both activities are usually praised by young adolescents influenced by TV.
"I can figure out from context what someone means by 'hacker'."
I can too but the problem is the millions of non-computers people that can't and think you are an outlaw if you say that you are a hacker.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I would have far less problem to move on if the community self-designed by the word hacker since the late 70's weren't doing illegal stuffs and thus giving a bad reputation to this word also used since the late 60's but another community in the computer field.
Ok, let say that during the 80's the virus coders called themselves software engineers because they are engineering new kind of softwares or whatever BS reason. Now, in the 90's it is them that are designed with this name by the medias. Wouldn't you be bothered to be looked oddly when you say to somebody "i'm a software engineer". Ok, the term engineer normally cannot be used that easily but that is not the point. The point is this would probably makes you angry that you can't use your activity's name without being compared to morons. Guess what, it also bothers me when morons call themselves hackers without being one.
You might say "Ok so why do you call yourself a hacker?" but I don't call myself a hacker, I call myself a newbie or a wannabe now (I'm not a guru but I am not exactly a newbie). I understand the hacker spirit and want to be part of this community one day. enough said.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Great sight! This really shows what Microsoft Frontpage can do!
What strikes me in this article is the way in which possession is defined as the capability to destroy. Philosofically speaking, we never really own anything - everything will eventually change hands unless it is destroyed in the mean time which defines the quality of how we own. If you think twice about this, you'll see why it's ugly; not only in terms of capital destruction, but also more psychologically; it makes the warm glow of having something a very animal thing. Bits are, of course, very much harder to grasp than matter - destruction of bits (which makes for the only definition of ownership apparently) is questionable in its meaning to say the least - they (those bits) were designed for this matter ! Computers are like a permanent sketchblock without the environmental waste; an infinitely versatile tool without the space. The problem lies on the side of the people who thought that a sketchblock could be sold as a painting, or a toolbox as a tool that doesn't do anything else. As long as computers are rapidly developing, experimental machines, let no suit-dressed person try to sell you a finished product - it isn't there ! And as far as 'vulnarable' companies are concerned - they should watch out, hire geeks, learn to program themselves, be aware all the time. They have been cunned into an experimental, developing, insecure world and noone can save their butts but themselves.
hahaha, "phone hackers"
it's phreaks, you punk.
In one paragraph he touched on the point that Businesses have a right to publicize their opinions using web pages/domains that they own. I believe this is a good point. Computers have become a major mode of communications. you wouldnt want someone stifiling your right to speak would you?
these business/org.s dont care about the proper hacker/cracker definitions, this is a simple matter of trespassing and liability. If someone broke into my house and critized me for having single pane windows, I wouldnt thank him and make sure i had his name spelled correctly. I would call the police and make sure he was procecuted to the full extent of the law.
I have to admit i didnt always share these views, I have trespassed both physically and electronically, perhaps its maturity, perhaps owning property , perhaps a respect for others that has made me change my position.
If it's military/government/medical - don't fsck with it. Don't even attempt entry. It had nothing to do with the cops - just the realization that some systems just might be mission-critical, and the consequences of a mistake ("Oops, my new command shell turned itself into a fork bomb") were too grave.
Once in, don't damage anything. Don't touch user data. Don't interfere with the operation of the system from the end-user's perspective.
On your way out, clean up your mess. Undo your backdoors as much as possible, and always attempt to tell the sysadmin what holes you used to get in so he can fix 'em before the next group of wanderers shows up.
I learned a lot about various operating systems during this phase. Where else would a protogeek in the early '80s be able to play with VMS and UNIX other than on someone else's machine through an X.25 network?
On software, yes, my friends and I cracked. We learned a lot of assembly language during this time. To this day, I still have, on a bookshelf, about half of Infocom's product line, and all of Sir-Tech's. I purchased every single box on that shelf. There were cracked Infocom games out there, but we ended up developing a crack that beat the "normal" crack by a country mile. We ended up admitting defeat on Sir-Tech's Wizardry; someone else published the crack that beat its nibble-counting scheme before we finished disassembling the code. (Then we just went back to playing it :)
But y'know what? We learned a hell of a lot about programming in the meantime. When we weren't cracking, we were writing our own code - versions of Life, adventure games, graphics hacks, whatever we felt like doing. We started off as crackers (of other people's software and the occasional system), and learned what we needed to know to end up as hackers (of our own software).
Someone posted an interesting comment on the intellectualcapital.com site - suggesting that today's crackers' efforts would be much better spent on using what's available to create something new, rather than idly DOSing web servers. I echo those sentiments. Nobody has to break into someone else's computer to have access to a modern operating system / compiler / better-than-a-1-MHz-8-bit-CPU. The power my friends and I once spent hours trying to get access to is now available to anyone, and it's available for free - as in beer and speech. Get out there and use it. If you must break into someone else's system, you've got the option of doing it as a friendly competition amongst your friends on your own network, a'la "Capture the Flag" at DEFCON. Besides being legal, it's a hell of a lot more challenging and fun when your opponent actually knows what he's doing!
(Yeah, yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here... but hey, isn't that half the fun of /.? :-)
You cant really compare crackers or hackers to car theives. Its hard to come up with a valid comparision. The only one that comes to my mind right away is, have you seen the movie sneakers? They break into banks, to make it harder for other people to break into banks. They dont keep the money they stole.
Now a car thief just steals a car, if he gave it back explaining the flaws of the alarm system it would be a different story.
- "My name is Legion, for we are many" -Mark 5:9
when someone misuses the term Hacker I simply correct them in the politest way possible.
It usually works.
I think most of us tend to call those people (the ones using 37337 h4x0r nuke stuff), script kiddies ;)
- "My name is Legion, for we are many" -Mark 5:9
Lies are provable. In this case it is nothing but his word against yours, and when you say "he's lying" when you restate your intent to say "this does not sound credible", you shoot yourself in the foot.
Maybe the guy was just smart enough to avoid telling finks the details.
Oh, I see how it is. If I actually MAKE my own spray paint (mix all the pigments and stuff), and spray my symbol on someone else's wall, thats not vandalism. Whatever dude... Its all vandalism.
Spyky
Those of you in the crusade for linguistic precision should take some tips in activism from this site. LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
He probably realized that he could do something contructive, rather than being a nuisance for the society.
To my dying day I will never understand why a community with above-average intelligence and creativity will spend hours on end WHINING about the misunderstanding of the hacker/cracker term.
Its all junior high "I need to belong" bullshit.
I code C, I must be a Hacker/Geek.
I played varsity volleyball in college, I must be a Jock
I own a pickup, I must be a redneck
Take some pride in your indivdualality (sp?)
my name is jeff
This is a good analogy. However the thief will still go to jail, because no one would understand his motives and think he is crazy. Your analogy is good, because it shows that the same way, it can't actually be a desire to show defects of systems. It is just that crackers have fun intruding in systems and have delusions of grandeur.
If the car thief explains that in fact he steals but gives back the cars because he finds that fun, he will go also directly in jail, because that's not an appropriate behavior in any society (maybe will he be given a therapy).
Yes. And the thiefs will go to jail. And it is not just "lefting the vault unlocked", it is "not inspecting all the walls, one by one, for hidden doors", which makes quite a difference.
If they don't steal proprietary info, then I feel it to be a misdemeanor. You need backups! You better have them anyway, for other reasons. You shouldn't post anything on the public web that you think of as secret.
Rules of thumb:
You need to be prepared for someone to play around with what's there. If 100 people can get at something it may be reasonable to depend on moral suasion. It 100,000 can get at it, hope that you can protect it. If 10,000,000 can get at it, never post you originals. Only post copies (and still try to protect it). If 100,000,000 can get at it, have an automatic scanner that compares the page against a rom version (CD-ROM?), can automatically copies it over whenever a change is detected.
Any more, and what you post should be BOTH a copy, and read only.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's simply not true. Attacking China's firewall is childish. First it is up to the Chinese citizens to attack it, as an act of rebellion against dictatorship. It's not a bunch of teenage Americans who should decide the politics in the world ! Second, in our societies, where everyone is basically free (it's the oppposite in China), it is not acceptable to vandalize, or perform illegal actions, in order to express an opinion: you are free to write them and publish them (journal, WWW), if you are doing something illegal instead, all you deserve is to go in jail.
This means a few things:
No . Crackers are a nuisance, period.
*There is more public support for thier actions, which ultimatly leads to more and more frequent hacks / hackers.
This is a complete fantasy (sorry). Buy yourself a good book about HTML or Java, and start doing something productive. The uninformed public may find crackers "cool", but real geeks know how little skill it takes to crack, and how lame it is anyway. And nobody will ever take them seriously, there is a difference between television and reality, my son.
It was probably when he left CMU and realized that getting press in mainstream media was a lot harder than getting your name in the school newspaper.
Declan seems to have the knack for finding the pulse of the majority and writing (or speaking) in such a way that attracts attention, but still says "Hey! I'm one of you and I agree with you! And I'm important, too!"
I'm suprised that, after being Student Body President for so long, he didn't try harder to break into politics.
- Yet Another SlashDot Reader Who Went To CMU With Declan
And an intruder is someone who breaks system security schemes. Both activities are similar (illegal, non-productive), and both are generally done by adolescents with too much free time. It makes sense to label them "software crackers" and "system crackers".
Watch the ol movie War Games...and you'll see the kid being referred to as a Hacker. Watch Sneekers..again hacker. Read books about the then youthful hackers of the 80's.
And read the Jargon file, you'll see that intruders are called crackers (and copiously despised, as deserved), and that the geek communauty as been well and alive since the 60s and used the word "hacker" before. It is not films for the uninformed public that will set the proper wording here on Slashdot !
Why this internet generation has changed the terminology is beyond me.
This is not what happened. There was a geek culture dating back from the 60s. There was also a parallel culture of stupidity, crackers calling themselves hackers. What happened is that you spent your time with lamers in 2600 sites, and suddenly discovered Slashdot. And then you got shocked with this use of "hackers". What happened is a culture clash between real hackers (the ones that change the world, as RMS, or are just peacefully hacking their code), and cretinuous crackers. Since Slashdot is all about Linux, FreeBSD, free software, etc..., i.e. "hackers" in the sense of "geeks", and since Linus is refered here as a hacker, it makes sense to apply the usage of the old timers. Look: what color is the background of the Slashdot page ? Yes! You're right! It is WHITE! See, you aren't in your crackers pseudo-underground sites! So learn your history, or go back to your stupidity. So...what happened to crackers? What do we call them now? You know...the people who break copy protection schemes on software?
"Software crackers". Besides, since they are as idiot as intruders, no harm is done in lumping these two species together.
I have to disagree. Changing websites and DOS attacks can easily can cause much more harm then grafitti. Grafitti gets the message without disrupting normal function of the wall. Defaced website usually cannot carry out its function. Suppose Somebody defaced an online brokerage and users cannot place trades as a result? This can lead to substantial financial losses. An effect a bit more drastic then grafitti.
In the movie Sneakers, iirc, they had a contract with a target previous to breaking in. That single difference can be enough to separate crime from security audit.
If we were to allow "I did to test security" argument to have legal or moral force - it can be used to justify virtually anything. Unfortuinately we do not know what ones intentions were when performing the action. And as a result we must judge by the deed rather then intentions.
First off is this quote here...
It is one thing to deface the propaganda machine of a government involved in naked brutality towards its citizens. Few would shed a tear if Burma's dictatorial military junta, the subject of international obloquy, got a virtual pie thrown in its face.
Am I the only one who sees this as being pretty much the same thing as him going into some irc channel and going "Hey, I hate Burma's dictatorial military junta. Let's go hack them!"? Basically, to me, he's using a little psychowhatever trick to get some little script kiddie to go hack them. Of course, for all I know, Burma doesn't exist... Oh well. Also, here in the quote it seems he's saying its OK and shouldn't be illegal to hack into a government's or group's webpage because what they do goes against popular morals.
Second, about the "hacker" and "cracker" thing. Most people that know the "true" meaning always say hacker is someone who fools around with stuff and programms stuff and all that. Isn't that basically what a coder is? Why not just, as someone stated earlier, find a new word? If you think about it, "hacker" is more of a fearful word than "cracker" is, and the government/media/uninformed-dumbasses like to create fear when talking about computer security. They're not gonna get the words straight, so its pretty much futile.
I agree 100% with all the points you made!! I can't stand that type of mass-media bullshit where people catch it and act like now they know what they're doing with computers and stuff. Anyone who claims to be a hacker or "populating cyberspace" or anything, probably isnt.
Well I guess I am just as "confused" as the other
guy, but I didn't spend time hanging out in 2600.
In fact, I've been standing outside, looking in at
crackers and hackers, and I can't tell you the
difference.
For all the good hackers that are worried that
they will be confused with eviiiiiiil crackers,
here's an idea! There are "good hackers" and
"evil hackers." Let's just ignore the word
crackers from now on in this context... it's
pointless.
Personally, I prefer the terms "white hats" and
"black hats." It sounds more cloak & dagger. After
all, that's what we're arguing about, right? The
"image" associated with words?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
When and what chaged him into a humorless curmudgeon? Money or the suits?
http://www.confuzn.com
The history of the linux and open source movement has been plagued by the gap between what we, the coders, want to produce and what the general public (PHB's in particular) actually wants to use. I suspect that the terms "hacker" and "cracker" is another example of this. Maybe we should give up the attempt to convince the overwhelming majority that their opinion is wrong and come up with a term to replace "hacker" for ourselves.
Personally I favor the term "digirati", derived from literati.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Hmmm....
it seems that he's from my area... i bet that a couple people around here still have their old HD's from the good ole bbs days... maybe i could see if he was actually an active community member back then.
is it possible that anyone here knows his handle back then? i think i still have my commie 64 disks somewhere with all the userlogs and message boards....
... hi bingo
as I recall, the use of the term "hacker" for an especially skilled programmer dates back to the '60s. but it's a pointless debate, anyway.
As if the 80's weren't bad enough, now we can blame them for the current confusion on the issue of 'hacker'.
/. -- big deal). I can figure out from context what someone means by 'hacker'.
Think early 70's. Think MIT. A hack was a clever piece of code. To hack was to write clever pieces of code. A hacker was someone who hacked.
Sadly, at some point they gave in to your newbie BS (due to being outnumbered), and the common usage of the word was changed. Now people are just trying to change it back.
I like the old -origional- definition more. Sorry. Then again, like most hackers, semantics don't bother me much (just enough to post on
The enemies of Democracy are
Since the 80s this is what people were:
Hackers = People who broke into place/machines/BBS's and did whatever they wanted. Either good or bad. Mostly people hacked into BBS's to show the SysOp his backdoors and (hopefully) told them how to fix this. There were many Hacker groups.
Crackers = People who broke software piracy locks and codes for software.
It is the 90s and the definitions have NOT changed no matter what anyone thinks. Us old schoolers wont give in to you newbie BS.
I just love that last paragraph. Such a nasty jab right where it hurts.
I completely agree with this article. Portraing crackers as "cool" is hardly justifiable. I think the reason why its happening is because majority of people do not use internet for essential day to day activities. When people can't buy groceries because somebody chose to put "3l33t 5cr|pt" on the page - their attitude towards crackers would change very quickly.
Another argument I have a problem with is stating that crackers are good ebcause they show flaws in existing systems. Yet, I haevn't met anyone who would say that car thieves are doing a service to society because they show how inadequate car alarm are. Or murderers being praised because they show flaws in law enforcement system (yes, a crime very different in magnitude, but this is the same argument). Again, in my opinion internet is viewed differently from real world because people do not rely on it for living (well, the majority of people doesn't).
Hackers / Crackers...whatever you feel like calling them have existed for a long time, and will continue to exist for a long long time. Certain hackers seem to crave the publics attention.
Years ago their antics resembled unorganized, anarchaic (word?), vandalistic stunts. The good ones got what they wanted (attention) and some went to jail. Recently however some have grown up somewhat and are starting to take more time in choosing their targets. As more public attention has been focused on them, their is a push to bend societies rules and thus put more meaning and thought into their actions.
An example of this are the recent political attacks such as that against China's firewall. By doing this the public views them as more humane and less malicous, and maybe even more poisitive human beings. This means a few things:
*There is less pressure to stop them with legal force.
*There is more public support for thier actions, which ultimatly leads to more and more frequent hacks / hackers.
Is this a good thing? I have yet to decide, but im personally kinda rooting for the hackers.
-Zack Rosen
zkr@salsgiver.com
-Zacker
An apache book(Mind you, cracking a webpage isn't the same as rooting a box!) cost you about $50.=.
All those idiots that bought themselves a kick ass computer and put Apache on it should actually *read* it.
As Aleph1 once said (or linked...) 90 % of the cracks can be prevented by "man chmod"
but it's "can" cause more harm than grafitti. A DOS attack is maybe like putting grafitti over the windshield of a bus. Doesn't really break the bus, but takes it out of commission until someone scrapes off the paint. It's arguably a more serious "bad thing" and it has really pissed me off when I've had to respond to DOS attacks at 3am (ringgg...rinng click "WE'VE BEEN HACKED!!), but usually no big deal to get the bus back on the road.
"Break"ing a functioning site like an online brokerage is a whole 'nother class of crime. That's vandalism. The kiddies that do this stuff should be punished the way kids that vandalize a high school or otherwise destroy property are punished. Still, you don't lock them up and throw away the key the way they are doing with Mitnick.
I'm not saying that any of these things are OK or that people should go do them, just that we should get some perspective. The fact that a computer ws used instead of a can of spray paint or an MAD flushed down the toilet does not change the nature of hte crime committed.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
The word "hack" comes from the 60's, and back then it meant what we now call an ugly hack, or a quick hack.
Besides: be glad the 80's are over. They only gave us Duran Duran
Let me try to explain, then... The actual names we have for things are extremely important, because the sound of the word as it's spoken, as well as the connotations the word has (if it's a word with several meanings, as "cracker"), tend to enforce a particular idea. GM found this out the hard way when they tried to sell the Chevy Nova south of the border--"No va"=="doesn't go" in Spanish. And I think "cracker" has failed in the mainstream press because it already has several other meanings, "big dumb redneck" being one of them.
Besides, being neurotic about labels and having the exact right name for something is a well-established computer-person trait. Having a compiler grind to a halt because of a missing ; or a call to "Printf()" may have caused this....
(All of this is, of course, just my misguided opinion.)
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
Actually, going back to plain English, the
correct term _is_ "hacker", in the sense of
hacking through the jungle with a blunt or sharp implement.
The "good" sense of "hacker" is in the sense
of hacking out a sculpture rather than sculpting it nicely.
"Hacker" simply is one of those words that has two meanings depending on context. The word "cracker" has _not_ taken on. So why keep trying to foist it on the public? It just doesn't chime well with plain English.
A better word might be "attacker" or "Internet burglar" or "net-hacker", as opposed to "code-hacker".
Cheerio...
That's simply not true. Attacking China's firewall is childish. First it is up to the Chinese citizens to attack it, as an act of rebellion against dictatorship. It's not a bunch of teenage Americans who should decide the politics in the world ! Second, in our societies, where everyone is basically free (it's the oppposite in China), it is not acceptable to vandalize, or perform illegal actions, in order to express an opinion: you are free to write them and publish them (journal, WWW), if you are doing something illegal instead, all you deserve is to go in jail.
*I agree whith you that hacking is definantly a crime. A crime that is punishable by law, and rightfully so.
*I would like to elaberate more one what i preveously stated.
"the public views them as more humane and less malicous, and maybe even more positive human beings."
...Maybe this assumption is wrong, but IMO the public would be more likely to frown upon random acts of malicousous against innocent corporations
No . Crackers are a nuisance, period.
* This maybe a very sound argument, one i may adopt when i grow older (wiser?)...I have no real response other than to state that i did not say other wise in my original post.
Buy yourself a good book about HTML or Java, and start doing something productive. The uninformed public may find crackers "cool", but real geeks know how little skill it takes to crack, and how lame it is anyway. And nobody will ever take them seriously, there is a difference between television and reality, my son.
At this point you really loose me. The above comment seems to be a personal (unsubstantiated) attack. You make conjectures and accusiations on topics i did not even mention. If you really do have some book suggestions, i would be happy to hear them.
Just send them to (zackr@cs.cmu.edu || zkr@salsgiver.com)
-Zacker
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a scientist. This person's job was simple: To discover the secrets of the universe and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, scientific knowledge became too much for one person to know in it's entirety. So, "Scientist" became a blanket term, to cover multiple categories, such as "Computer Scientist," "Archaeologist," "Chemist," and "Botanist."
These all have some bearing on the original meaning of the word, but are not related directly to each other.
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a hacker. This person's job was simple, to discover the secrets of the computer, and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, the politics associated around the use of such machines became varied, and split the hacker subtypes in two... White and Dark. During the evolution of these two types came new recruits into the world of computing, with the tools already made available for them. These, in turn, split off in multiple directions, and joined political factions in the Hacker hierarchy.
Now, there IS no "Hacker" as being a person of computers. Hacker is an archetype for multiple types of people to fit within.
see my essay on such at " http://reteo.8m.com/tech.html."
Enjoy.
--
The Penguin Producer
Maybe it's the resounding feeling of guilt as he looks back on all the people he's stepped on to get where he is today.
Then again, that would imply that McCullagh has some other guiding principle in life other than mindless ambition and self-interest. Nevermind.
Back in "my day" (mid 80's) when you cracked a system, you had to figure out everything yourself. You had to hack.
Most crackers these days artlessly download exploits from 3l33t hax0r s1t3z. This is not hacking. It's vandalism.
Really. Most of the hacks he's talking about (and you are with your grocery example) are just high tech graffiti. As such it needs to be judged accordingly.
Nobody likes the plastering of gang signs over every surface that we see so often. If they go to jail for a few weeks for it - fine by me.
There is also the whimsical graffiti ("Frodo Lives!" in the NY subways many years ago).
There's also "political" graffiti. If someone paints "Saddam, Feed your People!" in 4 foot letters on a Iraqui gov't center, I can't call him a criminal. Maybe you can, I'm sure the Iraqis would.
At worst it's "misc. mischief" - a misdemeanor in
the US. It's not "vandalism". The graffiti gang member has to get access to the busyards to do his tagging (all right, add breaking and entering) and could just as easily have broken out all the windows and destroyed the busses. They don't, and niether do the script kiddies that put stupid messages on web sites. They deface, but don't destroy. Often (like the Seti hack of last week) they have even backed up previous content themselves - but anyone that doesn't have a good recent backup of a commercial site is a total moron.
Get over it. This is not car theft, murder, a threat to national security or any other silly BS. It's the trivial stuff kids do an have always done, just with new tools (spray paint was also a new tool). These kids should be grounded, their allowance taken away and have to clean up trash on the hiyway on the weekeds. And then we ---- MOVE ON.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Maturity.
Have you ever noticed that whenever anyone starts to talk hacking, they always mention how the number of hacks is increasing, the number of breaking *doubled* since 1997 or whatever?
Is it just me, or is this completely natural, and expected? I mean the *Internet* itself is growing at an amazing rate, why should we expect that a property of networks, hacking, should become less relevant?
Saying that the number of break-ins has doubled in the past year is like saying that more people are murdered in LA than in Kelly Iowa (something like 300 people).
what this is, is FUD as far as I'm concerned, if you can't spit out some *relevant* numbers, then you don't deserve to be listened to (like the number of hacks/host, or the number of hacks/user. And if the *rate* of increase in hacking is higher or lower then the rate of growth of the Internet)
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I have to take everything Mr. McCullagh says with a grain of salt, as I had a credibility-shattering experience with him a couple of years ago.
His self-styled computer guru status is a rather recent invention. Before he was HotWired's Washington man, before he got into posting to RISKS and reading bugtraq, the following happened:
I was attending Lewis & Clark College. The Monica Lewinsky story had just broken, and in case you didn't follow too closely, Ms. Lewinsky attended Lewis & Clark a few years prior.
Mr. McCullagh (in his capacity as a pathfinder.com writer) emailed EVERY SINGLE STUDENT who had a web page, to ask if we knew her, if we had any experiences with her that we could share, etc. You can imagine that we all welcomed Lewinsky-related spam.
I mean, give me a break! He calls this investigative reporting? Besides, he had no way to verify anything we said, so we made up all sorts of ridiculous stories. He challenged my story by saying "If you knew her so well, where did she grow up, and what's her aunt's name and occupation?" Of course, that information had been published in the newspaper by then, so it was hardly privileged information.
I'm rambling here. The point is: McCullagh is no techno-guru. He's a regular old reporter who read some O'Reilly book and decided he was a hacker-reporter. Let's just all ignore him.
josh berezin
joshb at well.com
Oops, it wasn't published in Wired after all. I don't know how I got it into my head that it was. Well I guess I can go back to knowing that Wired sucks...
... made me think to myself:
While the former is usually going to be found guilty of some sort of computer crime, IMHO, the latter is a clear violation of the regulations of any level of security clearance that I've heard about and is, I think, a felony. If any govt. agency allows this to happen and go unpunished or is stupid enough to not have a policy in place to guard against such a situation, that agency deserves to have information stolen.
Yah, yah, yah... I know. Just because the door isn't locked isn't an invitation to come in and vandalize the place. But how would you feel about a bank that left the vault unlocked? Would you have real pity for a jewelry store whose employees left the place unlocked while they went out to lunch?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Wow, it's really rare that I see an article that so closely mirrors my own opinion (and to find such an article in the journalistic wasteland that is Wired is INCREDIBLE). It's time people realize most Hackers (or Crackers, whatever, I couldn't care less) aren't rebellious heroes. They're middle class kids with WAY too much time, and WAY too little self-esteem, imagination, and intelligence.
AFAIK only Norway has a sensible policy about computer intrusion: "if you link it, you assume responsibility for the links." If someone can post (in English, please?) real details about Norway's computer-intrusion laws I'd be grateful.
I will bet $.02 (the value of this post) that inside five years Norway develops an extremely capable computer security industry.
All this other chatter is just that. Sorry, but the Internet is not very regulable, and attaching moral stigma to creative play with the world's largest toy is doomed to failure; besides, it's like the grownups telling my generation not to do drugs. I can spare no pity for anyone who puts his pretty new Web site up on a leaky server. And yes, a server I'm responsible for was cracked. That was my fault, because at that time I knew almost nothing about Linux, or service ports, or firewalls. I learned.