This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mimeat_private for more info. --------------FDE757E22 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980905023531.28453wat_private> http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrm_story/0,3700,2000034-2103615,00.html Hacker Semantics By Kevin Poulsen May 7, 1998 The 13th annual Hackers Conference took place last weekend, continuing a tradition that began in 1984 when past and future computer pioneers-- including some of the biggest names in the industry-- first gathered together. But, unlike the first conference, Hackers 13.0 will not be covered by the mainstream media. There were no press releases, no photo ops, no media day. Why so media shy? These days the word "hacker" has too many different meanings, and no one wants to be attached to the wrong one. The confusion began in the early 1980s after the movie War Games came out, and the public became fascinated with the image of young, nerdy outlaws breaking into massively powerful computers. Prosecutors were smitten, too. It was around this time that the media started to use the term "hackers" to describe the defendants in the earliest computer intrusion prosecutions. Up until then, "hacker" was an industry reference to the brilliant and iconoclastic pioneers of the computer revolution. It was a word with a proud and noble tradition that was held in high esteem by a new generation of computer programmers hoping to carry that tradition into the future. The original hackers and their progeny were understandably displeased when the first public exposition of their title was in the crime page of the local newspaper. Suddenly, calling yourself a hacker was tantamount to a criminal confession. They fought back by creating a new paradigm, a simple model of good and evil: Hackers don't break the law, crackers do. This was a model the original hackers thought everyone could live with. Programmers could claim the prestigious title "hacker" without taking on the stigma of criminality, while computer outlaws would enjoy the slick anti-hero image of a sophisticated safe-cracker. And, as "hacker" and "cracker" sort of sound alike, the media could make the adjustment easily. So much for the new paradigm. The good-hacker, bad-cracker model was unceremoniously rejected by the computer underground. Cyberpunks didn't like being compared to a thin, crisp wafer; and they suspected more than some hypocrisy in the notion that the original hackers were clean-cut, church-goers who revered the law and respected authority. Their suspicion was well founded. The original hackers were characterized not just by their talent for expanding the limits of technology, but also by an ethic that held that information should be freely available and centralized authority mistrusted. Let's not forget that some of the same people who pioneered artificial intelligence and the personal computer also ushered in phone phreaking, lock hacking, and computer intrusion. Ironically, under the new paradigm, many of the original architects of hacking would be dismissed as "crackers"-- a paradox that leaves "hacker" a word without clear meaning. The media continues to label "hacker" with its own meaning of "computer criminal." This definition is even more at odds with the original than the squeaky-clean one promoted by the revisionists-- the information that the computer pioneers wanted freed was information about how things work, not people's personal email or credit card numbers. By denying the anarchistic elements of the hacker experience, the old-school hackers may have undermined their efforts to set the record straight-- and lost the war of words. If you ask me, the original definition of the word is still the best. Hackers are people who are intrinsically interested in how technology works, and striving to make that technology work in new ways. They do not rip-off automatic teller machines. Then again, they don't avidly pore over the Congressional Reporter to avoid running afoul of the latest Get Tough on High Tech Crime law, either. --------------FDE757E22-- -o- Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:03:15 PDT