Re: [ISN] Editorial - Hacker Vs. Cracker, Revisited (

From: mea culpa (jerichoat_private)
Date: Mon Jun 01 1998 - 21:12:56 PDT

  • Next message: mea culpa: "Re: [ISN] Editorial - Hacker Vs. Cracker, Revisited"

    Reply From: The Dark Tangent <dtangentat_private>
    Hash: SHA1
    At 10:17 PM 5/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
    >                   Editorial - Hacker Vs. Cracker, Revisited
    > CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1998 MAY 22 (Newsbytes) -- By Bob Woods, 
    >Newsbytes. If a person talks about or writes a news story regarding a 
    >hacker, one creates an image that is perpetuated in a Network  Associates
    >TV ad: the heavily tattooed, ratty looking cyberpunk who  breaks into
    >systems and posts proprietary information on the Internet  for the same
    >reason "why (I) pierce (my) tongue." The big problem,  though, is that
    >person is more accurately described as a "cracker," not  a "hacker." 
    This stuff bugs me.  A "cracker" is someone who cracks software protection
    on software - else their would be no ware-rez groups.  There were plenty
    of crackers around before the IBM PC was even invented.  I remember the
    online debate to call evil hackers "Spiders" but then the WWW came along. 
    People were talking about "Spiders on the web", so people changed their
    mind and kind of went with the current definition of a cracker being an
    evil hacker.  The problem is that all the lofty people debating the rename
    of this term had never been a courier of the 0-day warez.  USR wasn't
    joking when it named its modems the courier. 
    I've got a solution.  How about this:
    We call a hacker a hacker.
    We call this new "cracker" person a computer criminal.
    We call software crackers a cracker.
    Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn".
    Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated []

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 12:55:00 PDT