A Hacker Is A Criminal

By Daniel Miessler on September 3rd, 2006: Tagged as Cracker | Hacker | Information Security | Language
  • The Israel News Agency is asking every SEO advertising marketing professional to create Web pages and optimize the keywords: "Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest" in order to prevent the Iran newspapers, design-catalog bhi-design com the enemies of Israel, the Jews, the Christians and Western democracy from attaining a high Google and Google News position christianmusicbank http://www.christianmusicbank.com/resources/dir...
  • pc doc
    My problem is with people who insist on fighting people who use the word Hacker wrong. It’s not wrong; it’s the new definition, as decreed by the majority. It doesn’t change what “real” hackers do, or the morality thereof.

    **** I say ***

    ok.. I think I get what you are saying. I guess it goes back to a statement I read in
    Byte Magazine once . It read " I can make a word mean anything I want it to mean "

    pc doc ..

    ***
  • not really.. science and language are both tools. Just like a hammer and wrench, both are constructed to serve different ends. thats all…

    Come on, man -- you're a smart guy. Consider the word "nice". Do you know what it means now vs. what it used to mean? Look, I'm not arguing about what *should* be; I'm personally a pretty pedantic person when it comes to this stuff. I'm just telling you how it actually works.

    Words change meaning because the meaning is the only value of the word. So if people stop using things correctly (like the pronunciation of nuclear -- it's not NEW-CUE-LER) and take things their own way, then that will become the new "correct" way of using the word.

    If we want to fight something we should fight the idea that people who tinker and push the boundaries of understanding being considered criminals. I agree with sticking to THAT fight 100%. My problem is with people who insist on fighting people who use the word Hacker wrong. It's not wrong; it's the new definition, as decreed by the majority. It doesn't change what "real" hackers do, or the morality thereof.
  • Tim
    Those amazing people didn’t lose anything when the word hacker was hijacked, Tim. Words describe things, they don’t make them. So the definition changing doesn’t diminish their accomplishments.

    My point is that the battle for the word itself is a battle against ignorance, not just for one word. The people I mentioned fought against the norm because they wished to correct the ignorance around them. If we give up, we give ground to the ignorant.

    True, it's not like battling the idea of a geocentric universe, and it may be a losing battle in this world of morons, but it's still worth fighting. Are we (as Vincent put it) going to give up to a bunch of morons?

    I'm not just talking about one word; I'm addressing a broader problem. To fight ignorance we cannot give up any ground, even in tiny battles like this one.

    If this is evolution, it's backwards and needs to be stopped. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it correct.

    Yes, it does still hold its old-school definition within the community, but how long will that last if we allow the ignorant to teach our next generation these falsehoods?
  • pc doc
    Science is defined, much like math (usually). It’s precise and is constantly tested for accuracy. One doesn’t change these things because the general public doesn’t understand them.

    **** I say ****

    Actually, science, like language has laws that are formed when a group of people in a community test a theory to test a hypothesis to to form a consensus that upholds such a law.
    it is not as precise as you want to believe. Case in point. I learned about the nine (9) planets at an early age because I was fascinated about astronomy. Now I have just learned that astronomers in the scientific community have decided that what I learned in grade school was
    wrong because they have 'determined' that Pluto is not a planet, all because there are other bodies that are larger than it that did not get designated as such. If science is about facts and precision, Why are we having conversations about what is and is not a planet ? Another case in point. In chemistry I learned that all matter is composed of atoms, that all atoms are composed of protons neutrons and electrons. Through further reading Im finding out that these particles are made of quarks, and all this stuff is made of strings of energy that vibrate so fast that our five senses can only 'interpret' the balls of string-energy as matter. So in other words, matter really DOESN'T EXIST. It is only a figment of our Imagination. Science is precise ? Give me a break. Here's one for ya. If Scientist can use an electron microscope to 'see' atoms, why havent they come up with a machine to 'see' electrons and the strings of energy they are made of ?



    Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

    *** I say ***
    Language may be tool, but humankind has used language for more than communication. Language been used for more as a instrument of power than a 'tool' for communication.

    The US armed forces used the Native Navajo and their language to defeat the japanese because the language was virtually impossible to decipher except of course by another Navajo.

    Slave traders would mix of African slaves from different tribes because they knew that if the slave could not communicate, they could not organize themselves for rebellion.

    A religion gains power not from its faith of any god but the faith of the WORDS about said god:

    e.g

    Genesis 1:1
    IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.

    If this happened before the dawn of man, Then tell me WHO was around to write this
    as it was happening ? (I know I wasn't ) All one has is their belief that it happened.


    A person that understands the power of words can manipulate weak-minded people in seeing what they want THEM to see , NOT what is. This is why letting POP culture dictate societal policy is a VERY BAD IDEA. Just because its hacker today, does not mean It can't be scientist tomorrow, Weak-minded people have a very bad way of destroying that which they do not understand or comprehend.


    ****


    See the difference?

    **** I say ***


    not really.. science and language are both tools. Just like a hammer and wrench, both are constructed to serve different ends. thats all...


    ****
  • Vincent Mariani
    Get lost! All you're saying is that we should give up to a bunch of morons.
  • Those amazing people didn't lose anything when the word hacker was hijacked, Tim. Words describe things, they don't make them. So the definition changing doesn't diminish their accomplishments.

    And remember, the word still has the real, old-school meaning -- but only to the people in the community. As such, only use it in that way with those people. My point is simply that we shouldn't complain that evolution has taken its course with the word. It's just the way language works.
  • Tim
    Furthermore

    Here are two good reasons to fight the good fight:

    1) When someone uses the word "hacker" incorrectly, they are not only attacking people in the infosec society, they are attacking all free thinkers. Socrates, Archimedes, and Coppernicus were hackers just like Alan Turing, Brian Kernighan, and Linus Torvalds.

    2) There are geeks and there are nerds. Which are you? Would you give up that fight?

    I had another reason, but by the time I got around to typing it I forgot what is was. Oh well, such is life.
  • Tim
    looks like I've gotten to this thread a little late.

    Allow me to retort something Daniel has said:

    Science is defined, much like math (usually). It’s precise and is constantly tested for accuracy. One doesn’t change these things because the general public doesn’t understand them.

    Science and math are defined that way because somebody thought current thinking was wrong and went about proving otherwise. Several scientists and mathematicians died for their "heretical" beliefs. These people are the reason math and science are so often rethought and re-checked for accuracy.

    Furthermore:

    Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

    So you're saying that when I hear someone say "I'm gonna go lay down" (as opposed to "lie down") or "Him and me are going to go to the mall" (as opposed to "He and I are going...") I should just let it slide because everyone's doing it? ...because everyone gets what that person is saying so it's ok?

    Screw that. Language (just like math or science) can be considered wrong, and should be corrected -- wether it's how a word is defined or the grammar of a sentence or even spelling. I think we've gotten a bit lax about it lately.
  • You guys are missing the main issue here. If the majority of the world thinks a word means something, that *is* the main meaning. The dictionary will follow.

    This doesn't mean the other definitions will not be there anymore, or that we should stop using them amongst ourselves who know.

    My point is that you shouldn't be bothered by people who use the word "incorrectly", because the very fact that the majority of people are using it that way makes it the "correct" way.

    It's a language thing. I'm not being philosophical. I'm not saying that the masses shape reality, or they can join together and make the world flat or something. This us just the way language works.

    So amongst ourselves, sure...I still use the word the "real" way, but with laymen it's a waste to try and educate them to the right way. Their way *is* the right way.
  • Mark
    Im sorry daniel but I am more inclined to agree with pc doc because you failed to address the points he made.

    He stated that if pop culture dictated what is what then the world wouldn't be worth living in. It is very simple to have a colloquial meaning and an actual meaning for a word (which one is the colloquial and which is the actual meaning makes little difference). in the same way that an object can have a colloquial term and a scientific term.

    Is this not why there are multiple definitions in the dictionary?...just now i searched dictionary.com for the word "colloquial" to see if i had spelled it correctly and low and behold, it came up with two definitions.
  • You seem a bit confused about what I'm saying here. Science and language are two different things.

    Science is defined, much like math (usually). It's precise and is constantly tested for accuracy. One doesn't change these things because the general public doesn't understand them.

    Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let's us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it's fulfilling its role as a communicator.

    See the difference?
  • That makes him a would-be professional security tester trying to sell a book on how he does what he does.

    In reality, Ankit Fadia *is* a security professional who helps companies secure their organizations, so it really does fit. :)
  • pc doc
    A Hacker is a bad guy—someone trying to break into computers with the intent of causing harm.

    *** I say ***

    Here is a definition from dictionary.com

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hacker...


    You are right - the definition is changing. But should we just "let go as you put it "
    may be so. But in this country a person is convicted in the country based on intent as proven by evidence not by perception. That being said, society is on a very slippery slope
    when broad accusations turn into evidence. My knowledge of the proper use of a firearm should not label me a murderer. The key word in your the above sentence is INTENT,


    a very important word. THe INTENT of any defendant must be proven by evidence beyond and and all reasonable doubt in a court law , not pop culture

    ****

    Don’t argue with it, and stop fighting it. I don’t want to hear the speil about the origin of the word or anecdotes from the good ol’ days.

    *** I say ***

    Im not going to give it to you seems like you've made up your mind. All I care about is the law.

    ***

    We all know about the hacker vs. cracker debate. It’s a particularly lively one that leaves its droppings all over the Internet. The side that demands the use of the term “cracker” instead of hacker 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 mustn’t let them.


    *** I say ***

    That is the entire point . Last week in the media John Karr was accoused by law officials of
    killing Jon Benet Ramsey . Law enforcement said his confession was enough. So did the media which fed on his story like sharks chasing chum. The LAW and the EVIDENCE said otherwise. Now this same media has egg on its face and is trying to re- spin the story so they don't look like idiots. In all of the excitement and circus fanfare it never really dawned on anybody that the man MIGHT just have made the whole thing up so that he could get a paid ride back to the states on our dime, while avoiding a Thai jail cell ( which a re a lot worse than ours ) . D*mn if it didn't work. Wanabee Hackers bluff too.. They are wanabees because of this; The really GOOD hackers rarely bring attention to themselves because of the ignorance that most ppl have toward the h word. Yes some might even engage in crminal activity. What ever happened to measuring a man by the content of his character ?


    If pop culture determined truth, then:

    the earth would still be in the center of the solar system and universe.
    the earth would still be flat
    maggots would still come from air
    ad nauseam
  • pc doc
    So what does that make him.
  • No, not really. The word "hacker" was used in his title to sell books. He's attempting to teach "security testing", which is often called "ethical hacking" because it's a sexy name.
  • pc doc
    So I guess this person is an "ethical crminal" selling his book legally on the net

    he ya go :

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1...
  • I see, so you didn't have an actual argument, k?
  • k
    suck my balls k?
  • Steve
    You can pry that term from my cold dead fingers...

    Okay, you made some good points. I'll think about it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

twitter_icon

Sample Original Content


Information Security

Tutorials and Primers

Culture & Society

Technology & Science

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Miscellaneous

Tools & Projects


Blog Archives