  Daniel Premium,MVM join:2000-06-26 Pleasanton, CA clubs: 
2 edits | A Hacker Is A Criminal
A Hacker is a bad guysomeone trying to break into computers with the intent of causing harm. Dont argue with it, and stop fighting it. It's time for those in the security community to stop with the stubborn romantization of the word and start accepting what it means today. We all know about the hacker vs. cracker debate; its a particularly lively one that leaves its droppings all over the Internet. There are two main sides: those that use hacker in a popular, negative light, and those that demand the use of the term cracker instead of hacker when referring to a criminal. Those on this side offer an argument that goes something like this:
A hacker is not a criminal. A hacker is someone who seeks to understand their trade (usually computers). Through this understanding they are able to change how certain things work. They face obstacles by hacking solutions rather than accepting limitations. They are simply creative people using their understanding of a given system to solve problems. Unfortunately, the media are trying to hijack the term and turn it into something malicious. We mustnt let them.
I know this argument well. I know it because Ive made it dozens of times, both online and in real-world conversation. I was one of those who went out of his way to correct those who misused the Holy term. I gave the speech whenever it was needed, like a knight protecting his maidens name. But no more.
Language
Words and definitions are not as well-defined or unchanging as most believe. A cursory glance at any dictionary will reveal hundreds of words that used to mean something else. This is what's currently happening to the word hacker.
Words actually mean what people think they mean, not what theyre supposed" to mean. In fact, the very concept of supposed to mean is a silly one. A dictionary is little more than a time-sensitive collection of the way words are currently being used.
That being said, we in the geek world have lost the war for the word hacker. It already means something else, i.e. a computer criminal. Hacker means criminal because thats what most people think it means. It really is that simple.
It's Time To Let It Go
So I implore you, fellow geeks of the world who know and love what hacker used to mean: Let it go. Just let it go. Remember, it doesn't mean hacker completely lost its original, pure meaning. We in the community can still use it the "real" way amongst ourselves. But when a muggle uses it the wrong new way, resist the temptation to go into the speech. You know what he meant, and everyone else listening did too. So the word did it's job.
If you absolutely must say something, offer them some advice on how to secure their home network, or maybe explain why they should use Firefox instead of IE. Believe me, itll do more good.: |
|
  nwrickert sand groper Premium,MVM join:2004-09-04 Geneva, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| From the referenced page:
That being said, weve lost the war for the word hacker. It already means something else. It means a computer criminal. The reason it means that is because thats what most people think it means. Its really that simple. I agree. |
|
  gkweb
join:2003-06-09 76800
| reply to Daniel I agree the war is lost, see : »dictionary.cambridge.org/define.···ict=CALD
quote: hack (COMPUTING) verb [I usually + adverb or preposition] to get into someone else's computer system without permission in order to find out information or do something illegal: Computer hacking has become very widespread over the last decade. A programmer had managed to hack into some top-secret government data.
hacker noun [C] (ALSO computer hacker) someone who hacks into other people's computer systems
If even the dictionary tells that... 
Regards, gkweb. -- Firewall tester : »www.firewallleaktester.com
*member of ASAP : Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals* |
|
  MikeG Premium join:2004-10-02 Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
| reply to Daniel This link has a few different meanings of the word hacker. »dictionary.reference.com/search?···&x=0&y=0 -- Success is measured by effort |
|
  hpguru Curb Your Dogma Premium join:2002-04-12 | reply to Daniel Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us. -- Get hpHOSTS!
|
|
 PuterJunkie
join:2002-10-03 Powell, TN
| Somewhere along the line hacking went from trying to get in to another system for the challenge of it, to a way of exploiting the users data and resources for financial gain. So instead of hacking for the challenge and to learn something, it became hacking for criminal intent. The makers of viruses that were just trying to wreak chaos and havoc, decided to try to profit from the ignorance and the hard work of others. So that is what makes them criminals. The government can write a million laws against spyware, identity theft, and spam but in the end laws are written for criminals, not the law abiding. With that said the war is between the criminals and the computer-security challenged. The greatest weapon in the war is knowledge and education. So it is Forums like this one and Tech Support Guy that give us a chance to win the war. So three cheers for this forum and the users that give up their time to help us when we need it! Ok, I will put away my soap box now.  |
|
 TheWiseGuy Dog And Butterfly Premium,MVM join:2002-07-04 Yonkers, NY
| reply to Daniel »dictionary.cambridge.org/define.···0&dict=A »www.m-w.com/dictionary/hacker »www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=C···ct=title »www.answers.com/hacker&r=67 »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker
Unfortunately many words have different meanings depending on the context. Hacker can still IMO, have a positive not simply a negative connotation, but it depends on the meaning of the writer. You must read the word in the context of the material. So if you say it only means cracker or can not mean cracker, you will miss the meaning of what has been written. -- Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. |
|
 gatchel
join:2000-11-28 16465 | reply to Daniel If you are too stupid to let one word define you then so be it. |
|
  WhatMeWorry
@ev1servers.net | reply to Daniel hey i resent that. NOT. |
|
  91439306 15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16 New Milford, CT
| reply to hpguru said by hpguru :Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us. Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized.
Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government.
Now with the above new definition of freedom, we can dismantle the power of the Constitution. Think about it. -- Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
My Kurzweil Music at: '»www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.basspig.com Bass Pig's Lair
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com Stereo Feed! |
|
  anonofcourse
@verizon.net | reply to Daniel Look, "breaking into a system just for the challenge" has always been a semantic to make hackers feel better. If you break a system you are still a criminal. If you break into a bank and dont take the money you are still commiting a crime. |
|
  elios
join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO
·Mediacom
| said by anonofcourse :
Look, "breaking into a system just for the challenge" has always been a semantic to make hackers feel better. If you break a system you are still a criminal. If you break into a bank and dont take the money you are still commiting a crime. but its the lesser crime then actuly TAKING the money breaking and entering
i see it as the same as some one leaves ther front door unlocked
a "hacker" would check every ones doors when one is found unlocked and no ones home thay would take alook in side see whats there leave and leave a note says "LOCK YOUR DOOR"
a "cracker" would steal every thing that isnt nailed down
i see nothing wrong with what a hacker would |
|
  Steve Pipe Wrench Fight Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | reply to 91439306 said by 91439306 :Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. No, I don't think they do: words are merely conventions for concepts, and all that matters is that everybody knows what you're talking about when you say the word. The key factor is not an absolute meaning, but an agreed-upon meaning.Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government. You picked an excellent word upon which equivocation is rampant, and it's been appropriated heavily by those opposed to liberty. It's usually spoken of in vague, non-definitions such as "real freedom" instead of the iron-clad "freedom from coercion".
But unlike "hacker", which is a lost cause, "freedom" is still clung to by lovers of liberty.
Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl Unix Wizard Microsoft Security MVP Tustin, California USA my web site |
|
  hpguru Curb Your Dogma Premium join:2002-04-12 | reply to 91439306 What ^^he^^ said.  |
|
  Daniel Premium,MVM join:2000-06-26 Pleasanton, CA clubs: 
| reply to 91439306 said by 91439306 :said by hpguru :Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us. Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. Well, that's just it -- words don't have an absolute meaning. They have currently used meanings, and generally accepted meanings. Those are what you find in the dictionary.
If what you are saying were correct, the meaning of words would not change over time. But they do. They do simply because people start using them differently, and when it comes time to write a new dictionary, the way the word is being used by the majority goes into the book, not the way it's used "properly". -- dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge |
|
  Jwobot
join:2002-08-14 Sterling Heights, MI | Breaking into a house shouldt be a crime either! |
|
 dave Premium,MVM join:2000-05-04 not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to 91439306 said by 91439306 :Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. Oh, nonsense.
What do you mean when you say "computer"?
I sincerely hope you mean a person, usually a woman, who is employed to perform routine arithmetical calculations.
If you try and change the meaning of the word like some misguided fools, for example applying it to electromechanical or electronic calculating engines, then I fear for the stability of civilization. |
|
 dave Premium,MVM join:2000-05-04 not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to 91439306 said by 91439306 :Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government. Now with the above new definition of freedom, we can dismantle the power of the Constitution. Think about it. You are, I think, factually correct here.
But the flaw in your thinking is this: before the "definition of freedom" as written in a dictionary can change, we must already be using the word in this new and different way. That is, the dictionary will not allow us to be enslaved; the dictionary will merely report that we are already enslaved.
Your thesis isn't so far from that of '1984', by the time that the transition to Newspeak is completed, the old concept of freedom would be quite literally unthinkable: freedom would be freedom to love IngSoc and the Psrty.
But the work is done in minds, not dictionaries. And it's quite different to what we're talking about here. Obviously, we have not lost the concept implied in the original meaning of 'hacker'. |
|
  91439306 15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16 New Milford, CT
| The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change. For example, we are already having problems with the definition of 'militia' with regard to the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution, and thousands of other works of literature, would have to be rewritten so that the meaning of 'new speak' would convey the same result--if that were even possible. Language must be stable throughout all time. Were we to keep changing definitions of existing words, the opportunity for confusion would proliferate in unfathomable multiplicity. Back in the '30s & 40s, it was okay to eclaim that one feels 'gay'. Today, it would be an admission of homosexuality. There are already too many examples of language being twisted by cultural changes. For goodness sake, add NEW words--don't change the existing words. -- Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
My Kurzweil Music at: '»www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.basspig.com Bass Pig's Lair
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com Stereo Feed! |
|
  Steve Pipe Wrench Fight Consultant join:2001-03-10 Yorba Linda, CA
| said by 91439306 : For goodness sake, add NEW words--don't change the existing words. This is a naïve and unwinnable battle, one which flies in the face of thousands of years of language evolution. No central body determines the meanings of words - it's the collective contributions of everybody casting an unwitting "vote", and it's less under conscious control than fashion.
Likewise with pronunciation: I'm deeply disappointed that the moron-esque "newkular" is becoming acceptable in polite society, and it's going to be a valid pronunciation sooner or later. And all I can do to stop it is use it correctly when I have the chance: that's just the way it goes. Things change whether I like it or not.
To oppose semantic evolution in the general case is like opposing the weather: it's silly to take a position on a force of nature.
Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl Unix Wizard Microsoft Security MVP Tustin, California USA my web site |
|