how-to block ads
|
oh hello
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Carrollton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Steve
Re: A Hacker Is A Criminal
The word "hack" is used all the time in a non-negative way. Registry hacks, anyone?
quote:
said by 91439306  :
it's silly to take a position on a force of nature.
If language changing is a force of nature, then everything humans do can be viewed as a force of nature. And if that's the case, it's silly to take a position on anything. I guess there's nothing wrong with thinking that way. That is - until you're not consistent. | |
BDSMerlin
Premium
join:2004-07-01
Glen Burnie, MD
4 edits | reply to Daniel
Let me introduce myself
I am a HACKER!! I work for a large company trying to break into differnt company systems from the outside and testing to see if our firewalls are configered right or what access I can gain using differnt methods, I work with the domain admins and computer security sections of my company to help make them more secure, I am a Whitehat HACKER.
Even though I break into our companys systems I do it with good intent to make them more secure to keep criminal's
at bay. But it is the nieve company worker who is the most dangrous of security risk blindly sharing usernames and passwords with some guy on the phone who says he's in the IT department giving the hacker what he needs to do his work.
Most of the cracking attepts made are from overseas mostly foregn goverment or criminal orginazation sponsored cracking to get company or goverment secrets, these are the Bank and Credit card cracks you have heard of most reasontly in the news these are carried out by them not the kid sitting in his parents basment he is what we call a script kiddy and is the lowest form of cracker there is.
It was the TV Media in the late 80's early 90's culmanating with Kevin Mitnicks arrest that the word HACKER started to bundle all people that did computer crimes into one group without understanding what the word means in the computer world they did not care it was a much catchier phrase than cracker. The word cracker came from the safe cracker someone who trys to break into a place that is secure thus the he has cracked the security.
I HACK computer programs also to either fix issues with the program or make it do what I want that is where the word started and I will still use that word to didcribe it because I refuse to let the media NEWS Define what means what.
NOW SINCE I DO HACK AND IN YOUR DEFINISION ALL HACKERS ARE CRIMINAL's, AM I A CRIMINAL?
Merlin
Oh and that is my hacker name | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| said by BDSMerlin :Let me introduce myself I am a HACKER!! I work for a large company trying to break into differnt company systems from the outside and testing to see if our firewalls are configered right or what access I can gain using differnt methods, I work with the domain admins and computer security sections of my company to help make them more secure, I am a Whitehat HACKER. You are a pen tester.
--
Get hpHOSTS!
| |
DocLarge
Premium
join:2004-09-08
| reply to Daniel
Man, this is silly.
My two cents worth:
Hacker in today's language equates to criminal. Time to piss on the camp fire because the word is lost...
Here's the new terms to get on board with (although the issue of color for good and evil still perplexes me):
White Hats = Good Guys (Us)
Black Hats = Bad Guys (Them, Otherwise known as "Hackers")
Let it go; although no one likes to "lay down" on a principle, this principle was knocked down and "kicked to Hell" a long time ago. Hackers go to jail; those who wear the white hats put them there...
Jay | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to oh hello
said by oh hello : If language changing is a force of nature, then everything humans do can be viewed as a force of nature. No: language change is not volitional, but other things humans do is. That's a big difference.
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to 91439306
said by 91439306 :The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change. Nonsense. Can you understand Shakespeare? And yet he uses words that have changed their meaning between Elizabethan times and Elizabeth-II-an times.
Language must be stable throughout all time. There is no 'must' about it, and the reason for this is blindingly obvious: there is no such stability. There are plenty of counterexamples, where words change meaning.
Here's one: 'nice'. | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by dave :Here's one: 'nice'. The word "silly" used to mean "blessed", but it now refers to some of the points made in this thread
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
 ·New York Connect
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dave
said by dave :Here's one: 'nice'. Dear Friends,
Whilst Dave makes a nice distinction among prescriptive, descriptive, and cognitive use of syntax, perhaps I have missed something in popular culture.
Since my exposure to computers is limited to a rather inept use of e-mail, the occasional skype, and lengthy inarticulate rants to the unix forum here, it never occurred to me that hacker was anything but an informal synonym for programmer, with the emphasis or connotative shading of someone dealing in the more pragmatic aspects of userland.
Until the post, supra, I presumed describing Dave or Steve as hackers was the correct use of language.
The point being that, while I am hardly illiterate, there is a cultural use of words which those who live in the more everyday world of that culture appreciate, and those outside of it do not.
A few days ago, I gave my daughter my most beloved edition of the short OED, beautiful leather bound, 1933 edition. It was, until dict became so easy, my usual reference, on my desk next to the port and cigars, as a symbol of times and manners long since dead. I suppose few will ever mourn the passing of rational humanism, as our world metamorphoses into either a feudal society once again, or even a democratic theocracy. I, for one, realise that a certain amount of strict construction, contract based society, and civil libertarianism depend precisely upon the fact that we impose stable meanings upon words whose usage belies the very instabilty of definition, syntax, grammar, and context.
This began in the courts in the late nineteenth century. "No" in the Bill of Rights cannot mean no, because "no" has to be quantified, qualified, re-defined in order for people to accept it. "No" means to Holmes, "within the confines of community standard". Not to some jackass, but to Holmes. Be this the case, the idea that we can establish contract with words being as flexible as they are creates the current social malaise.
Is Microsoft Corporation a monopoly? Yes, of course, but, since without such a monopoly, we cannot really create a higher standard of living, it is a necessary monopoly, so we are told.
Anyone here old enough to remember the teaching of US history recalling Roosevelt being the trust buster and Harriman, Rockefeller, et al, being "robber barons". Since corporations pay the taxes that elect politicians, as well as fund our state schools, the phrase itself sounds archaic, quaint, a remnant of a simpler time when even a wiretap was consider so egregious an offence against our freedom that a curial order was needed, and granted only with real resistance to the very concept of governmental nannying, however necessary to protect life and property.
There is indeed a nice variance between a word used in conversation and a word used to bind men to their word. Shakespeare is comprehensible precisely because we read, we search the meaning of our lives, the nature of our souls with the tools of our disciplines, language, music, plastic arts, and even athletic contests. To argue that descriptive meaning alone can determine the bases of contracts would create chaos, to argue that prescription will order men's thoughts, tyranny.
To note, however, that those skilled in rhetoric can still make language mean what they wish it so to mean, rather than be forced to accept the dictum about knowing the audience, is cause for both wonder at our own perceptiveness and alarm at the possibility of "no" being taken to mean "no, unless the bible, torah, or koran say otherwise, or unless it offend the state and her servants".
I should be more careful before admitting to only one usage being determinant of my own actions, to say nothing of my private thoughts and communications. To allow a word to change without the permission of the speaker, because the mob would have it so is disingenuous.
No one presumes when I state that I am no hacker that I observe statute, rather, that I cannot write in programming languages to effectuate movement of electrons here or there, at my volitional behest. Which, come to think of, describes a lot of professional programmers, as well as some open source friends.
All good wishes,
Yazdzik
--
chi troppo vuole nulla stringe | |
Daniel
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-26
Pleasanton, CA
clubs: 
| reply to BDSMerlin
said by BDSMerlin :NOW SINCE I DO HACK AND IN YOUR DEFINISION ALL HACKERS ARE CRIMINAL's, AM I A CRIMINAL? Relax, dude. You're not a hacker. You are, like hpguru stated, a pen-tester. Now don't get me wrong, you are a hacker in the old sense, in the original sense of the word, but the point of the matter is that that definition is not longer valid. The word has changed, so you are now an "Ethical Hacker".
Actually, let's look at that term -- ethical hacker. You know what CEH is, right? It's a Certified Ethical Hacker. That's a certification to give legitimacy to pen-testers. Notice the name.
Ethical Hacker.
Why would they append "ethical" to the front of Hacker? Simple. Because it's required in order to counteract the natural reaction when people hear the word Hacker by itself.
--
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge | |
whizkid3
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY | reply to Daniel
It all depends on what the definition of 'is', is. | |
CMga
@bellsouth.net
| reply to Daniel
"but the point of the matter is that that definition is not longer valid."
Well, it's not entirely invalid, but the point is that the MOST common use of the word IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC has a negative connotation. This does NOT prevent the "old" usage in the appropriate context.
Many words have multiple meanings. We deduce the intended meaning from the context when we can -- English has some interesting ambiguities. In some cases one meaning of a word (the original) is now listed as "archaic" in the dictionary (or sometimes has disappeared altogether). This is simply the nature of language. Those who believe that meanings are absolute have never studied this and are simply too young to have noticed it happening. | |
NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Murfreesboro, TN
 ·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to Daniel
My dictionary still recognizes multiple meanings of the word "hacker", with the implied meaning being derived from the context in which it is used (like many other words in the English language).
said by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language :
hacker (hàk´er) noun
1.Computer Science.
a. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
b. One who illegally gains access to or enters another's electronic system to obtain secret information or steal money.
2.Sports. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.
[Perhaps from hacker, amateurish or inept golfer or tennis player (possibly from hack[1]) and or perhaps from hack, practical joke, clever scheme (from dialectal hack, to embarrass, confuse, play a trick on).]
hack[1]
hack (hak) noun
1. A modification to the code in a program, often made without taking the time to find an elegant solution.
2. A sloppy job. See also kludge, patch. Also called kludge, patch.
hack[2]
hack (hak) verb
1. To apply creative ingenuity to a problem or project.
2. To alter the behavior of an application or an operating system by modifying its code rather than by running the program and selecting options.
The list for "hack" and "hacker" is actually much longer with still more definitions, but I limited this post to mostly computer/network definitions.
The English language is, was, and will remain versatile enough to be able to handle words with multiple meanings depending upon context. If an individual user of the English language is unable to handle this task, then perhaps a bit of remedial education might be indicated.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
Test your firewall. | |
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
·New York Connect
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by NetFixer :The English language is, was, and will remain versatile enough to be able to handle words with multiple meanings depending upon context. Thank you, NetFixer.
-M
--
chi troppo vuole nulla stringe | |
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
·New York Connect
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Daniel
And, just to be fair
WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]
hacker
n 1: someone who plays golf poorly
2: a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to
steal or change or destroy information as a form of
cyber-terrorism [syn: cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk]
3: a programmer for whom computing is its own reward; may enjoy
the challenge of breaking into other computers but does no
harm; "true hackers subscribe to a code of ethics and look
down upon crackers"
4: one who works hard at boring tasks [syn: hack, drudge]
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (19 Sep 2003) [foldoc]
hacker
<person, jargon> (Originally, someone who makes furniture with
an axe) 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of
programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as
opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum
necessary.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who
enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about
programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently
does work using it or on it; as in "a Unix hacker".
(Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit
them congregate.)
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an
astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively
overcoming or circumventing limitations.
8. (Deprecated) A malicious meddler who tries to discover
sensitive information by poking around. Hence "password
hacker", "network hacker". The correct term is cracker.
The term "hacker" also tends to connote membership in the
global community defined by the net (see The Network and
Internet address). It also implies that the person
described is seen to subscribe to some version of the hacker
ethic.
It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to
describe oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves
something of an elite (a meritocracy based on ability), though
one to which new members are gladly welcome. Thus while it is
gratifying to be called a hacker, false claimants to the title
are quickly labelled as "bogus" or a "wannabee".
Does this mean my inability to swing a driver enables me to write one?
-m
--
chi troppo vuole nulla stringe | |
oh hello
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Carrollton, TX | reply to Steve
Counterargument: language is volitional, just like other things humans do. no difference. | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by oh hello :Counterargument: language is volitional, just like other things humans do. no difference. Well I think it's largely not. Individual stupid things that people say may be, but broad directions of language over time are less so. It's not a conscious choice, but a collective movement, and I consider that in the nonvolitional category. Perhaps you don't.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to yazdzik
Until the post, supra, I presumed describing Dave or Steve as hackers was the correct use of language. And it still is. 'Hacker' still means that over-enthusiastic progammer thing.
However, it also means 'one who breaks into computer systems', and it is this other meaning that people seem to object to.
I suggest that the objectors ought to get used to the notion that, in English, one word can have more than one meaning. Even opposite meanings. With that in mind, isn't it about time we tabled this discussion?
To argue that descriptive meaning alone can determine the bases of contracts would create chaos, to argue that prescription will order men's thoughts, tyranny. OK, I concede your point. But I view that kind of writing as highly technical in nature, and it is a feature of technical communication that words do not have the same looseness around the edges that they have in normal use.
Take 'theory' for a topical example. To those with even a smattering of science education, this means a systematic explanation that is amongst the best there is; a theory accounts for the known facts, and allows useful predictions to be made.
In everyday speech, 'theory' is much less certain, and gets used for any half-baked idea.
We can live comfortably with the difference, and only the half-baked confuse the two. | |
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to dave
said by dave :said by 91439306 :The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change. Nonsense. Can you understand Shakespeare? And yet he uses words that have changed their meaning between Elizabethan times and Elizabeth-II-an times. Language must be stable throughout all time. There is no 'must' about it, and the reason for this is blindingly obvious: there is no such stability. There are plenty of counterexamples, where words change meaning. Here's one: 'nice'. "Nor do I think it a matter of little moment whether the language of a people be vitiated or refined, whether the popular idiom be erroneous or correct....It is the opinion of Plato, that changes in the dress and habits of the citizens portend great changes and commotions in the state; and I am inclined to believe that when the language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin or their degredation. For what do terms used without skill or meaning, which are at once corrupt and misapplied, denote but a people listless, supine, and ripe for servitude? On the contrary, we have never hear of any people or state which has not flourished in some degree of prosperity as long as their language has retained its elegance and purity."
John Milton to Benedetto Bonomatthai September 10, 1638
edited to fix typos
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.ie7.com/ | |
dibbb
join:2003-09-19
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to Daniel
I might as well throw my 2 cents in.
There's also something called context. And audience.
If you're talking to your computer buddies about stuff, they will understand when you say you're a hacker that you may mean it in a "good" way.
Other folks may be talking to their buddies about hacking, and they know you meant it in a "bad" way.
The word hacker just sounds cool too. | |
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
| reply to oh hello
said by oh hello :Counterargument: language is volitional, just like other things humans do. no difference. Language is volitional in the same way the stock market is. Everyone involved makes a conscious decision, but the aggregate behavior is impossible for anyone involved in the system to control or even predict to any level of detail other than broad trends. Language is a manifestation of the culture in which it is used and thus beyond the ability of anyone to control in any meaningful way.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
|
