### Author:  [@StephenG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StephenG)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/1 "2003-06-03T01:15:23Z")
First and foremost, I’m not upset – I’d just like some clarification. However, it’s about a mod’s actions, and that’s why it’s here.
In a [recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187904), **Czarcasm** spake thusly:
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by mangeorge_
> > Anyway, as an experiment, I’ll not be pissed-off if anyone can find private (address, etc) info about me using my profile.
> > Go ahead, dopers, give it a try.
>
> \*\*_I’ll_ be pissed off if this kind of experiment is ever tried again on this message board. Hacking, even if invited, is just not done here. \*\*
Now, I understand why “this kind of experiment” should not be tried here. And I understand why hacking should not be tried here. What I don’t understand is why **Czarcasm** referred to this activity as hacking.
Hacking (or “cracking”, more technically), as I understand it’s generally used, refers to _breaking into_ computer systems, to using ids or passwords or information that is not yours to gain information or access you should not have.
Hacking, as I would define it, refers to clever and creative work to solve a problem or to do something more neatly. It has several other definitions, which can be explored in the [Jargon File](http://info.astrian.net/jargon/Hacker_Folklore/The_Meaning_of_Hack).
None of these definitions refers to what (I imagine) several posters, including myself, did. We used _publically available, easily accessible, non-password-protected_ information, provided by the poster (i.e., his profile) to learn more _publically available, easily accessible, non-password-protected_ information. Where I come from, this isn’t called hacking … it’s called research.
**Czarcasm** , I have no quibble with what you did – in your shoes, I imagine I would have done the same. That’s why I didn’t detail the method(s) used here. I’m just not sure why you used the label “hacking”.
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/2 "2003-06-03T01:19:49Z")
Can we go sidehacking instead?
---
### Author:  [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/3 "2003-06-03T01:39:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by E-Sabbath \*
> \*\*Can we go sidehacking instead? \*\*
Bad MSTie! Moderator says no hacking at all! 😃
---
### Author:  [@Freiheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freiheit)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/4 "2003-06-03T01:59:23Z")
I don’t know what the white-hats can do about the usage of the word ‘hack’. They’ve been fighting it for years, but it’s just a losing battle.
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/5 "2003-06-03T05:34:45Z")
It’s just a little bit annoying to always be associated with criminals.
Just a little bit.
Please, use the correct term (cracking), out of respect for me.
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/6 "2003-06-03T05:52:49Z")
Many of us who are steeped in network security – I daresay far moreso then those protesting here – refer to hacking as an illegal activity. The fact that you define it such doesn’t make it so.
---
### Author:  [@Jaade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaade)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/7 "2003-06-03T06:11:47Z")
Technically, having just come from that thread, what we did was called “skip tracing”.
People, don’t put your real name on anything internet related. Ever.
~J
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/8 "2003-06-03T06:50:17Z")
‘Hacking’ may have once meant one thing, but now just means some sonofawhore in St.Petersburg is going to be getting Hello Kitty! porn, courtesy of _your_ credit card. Word meanings do change over time.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/9 "2003-06-03T07:16:05Z")
> [@](#):
>
> **StephenG** : None of these definitions refers to what (I imagine) several posters, including myself, did.
It’s not what was actually _done_ that is the problem – it’s the invitation. Someone who was determined to meet the challenge would find it _a lot_ easier if they used illegal means-- which is _not_ ruled out in the invitation. Even without hacking the SDMB server, one could easily use the information in someone’s profile to determine _another place_ to target for packet sniffing or even a less passive method of jiggery-pokery. The easiest place to start would be right here, of course, but if you challenge someone to determine your real identity, the easiest way would definitely not involve limiting yourself to legitimate online research.
Laws could be broken, and it’s possible it could turn around and bite the _Reader_ in the ass, if someone decided to try to make them responsible. In a civil action, it’s the folks who have _assets_ that make an attractive target – the 12-year-old script kiddie hardly matters.
It may seem like a remote possibility, but it _is_ a possibility. So let’s just _not_, okay?
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/10 "2003-06-03T07:25:52Z")
It’s actually always had both meanings. Just in the last 5 or 10 or who cares years, some factions have got this wild hair up their butt that it’s **their** word, and noone else can use it except their way.
Miriam Webster says
> [@](#):
>
> 1 : one that hacks
> 2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity \
> 3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
> 4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
A common definition by who knows can be found around similar to this
> [@](#):
>
> HACKER (originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe n. 1. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming 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, or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value (q.v.). 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. Not everything a hacker produces is a hack. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it . . . . 6. A malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information be poking around.
Except that it’s sometimes written
> [@](#):
>
> …
> 6. [deprecated] A malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information be poking around. The correct term for this sense is cracker.
Well, whatever. One of those wannabe word-owners decides it’s deprecated and that makes it so.
Webster says it can be used in a derogatory fashion. And if that ain’t good enough, you gotta look to experts in the field for their usage. I for one am surrounded by experts in the field, and have been accused of being one myself in my occasional better moments. And I’ll tell you that plenty of people – not grandmothers who get their definitions from time magazine – but rather people qualified and skilled in the art and science of network security use the term “hacker” to mean someone who does wicked things with their knowledge of computer innards. Not everyone defines it that way. But many do. If I had to guess, I’d say the majority. But I don’t have to guess. Because most of us in the bowels of the network security machinery really don’t care. It’s the script kiddies craving social recognition that fight that fight.
---
### Author:  [@mouthbreather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mouthbreather)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/11 "2003-06-03T12:00:19Z")
I run this Intarnet now Bub!!!111
---
### Author:  [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/12 "2003-06-03T16:07:28Z")
We had this fight during the hiatus, and it went nowhere then, either. I find the blanket use of “Hacking==bad” quite annoying, because a fair bit of what I do professionaly is a ‘hack,’ that is, a quick-n-dirty solution to a pressing problem. That I do it on the behalf of my employer, for the benefit of my employer, on systems owned and operated by my employer, might _just_ be significant, you suppose?
Media: Stop equating my job with criminal activity, would you please?
---
### Author:  [@StephenG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StephenG)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/13 "2003-06-03T16:39:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Bill H. \*
> \*\*Many of us … refer to hacking as an illegal activity. The fact that you define it such doesn’t make it so. \*\*
**Bill** , I understand what you’re saying. And I read your other post too. I should have mentioned that I wasn’t looking to get into the legal/illegal hacking debate, or the hacking/cracking debate (although I suspect my sympathies were made clear) – those debates were not my point.
The way in which I found the personal information involved one website other than the profile, and one extremely common computer program – although I suspect I could have used a different website instead of that program. There was no packet sniffing or anything else arcane (although I thank **Larry Mudd** for his excellent post), there was nothing sophisticated or illegal in what was done.
I stand by what I said before. There was no sophisticated computer usage happening, there was no circumventing of passwords, there were no intrusive activites … posters used supplied information to research other information. It’s taken me longer to find a book in my school library, and I had to know more about the subject matter.
**Jaade** : I googled “skip tracing”, and found some professional services. I guess you’re right, but we did a pretty primitive evrsion of that – it didn’t take 10 days (one site’s idea of a “Rush” trace), it took 60 seconds. _shrug_ Thanks for the term!
---
### Author:  [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/14 "2003-06-03T16:42:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Freiheit \*
> \*\*I don’t know what the white-hats can do about the usage of the word ‘hack’. They’ve been fighting it for years, but it’s just a losing battle. \*\*
Well put.
---
### Author:  [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/15 "2003-06-03T16:47:17Z")
I’ve often seen the PtB\* here refer to alterations to vB code as “hacking”… is that usage frowned upon?
In any event, when someone says they needed to do a software hack, I know they’re not talking about anything illegal.
\*powers that be
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/16 "2003-06-03T16:58:24Z")
Oh, for the love of God. This stupid argument AGAIN?
“Hacker” means - among other things - “to gain illegal or unauthorized access to a computer.” It does. I’m sorry, but you can find that very definition in most if not all reputable dictionaries. The cite **Bill H.** refers to that claims it’s the wrong term in place of “cracker” is not a real dictionary, it’s an online jargon file written by computer aficionados.
English is not French, where there’s a particular definition for every word set out by some egghead in France; it’s a living language, and a word means what the general consensus chooses it to mean. If English speakers across the word use “Hacker” to mean “someone who breaks into computer systems” then that’s what the word means. If they used “Hacker” to mean “zebra,” it would mean “zebra.” And the absolute fact of the matter is that when most people say “hacker” they mean the “bad computer dude” definition.
“Hacker” ALSO means someone who just is good at using computers. It also means someone who persists at a task, game or hobby despite being bad at it. In English, words have multiple definitions. Deal with it.
---
### Author:  [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/17 "2003-06-03T17:01:15Z")
It’s not just a losing battle; it’s a lost battle. Let’s move on.
And this from a dedicated language prescriptivist, who still holds firm on “infer” and “imply”.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/18 "2003-06-03T19:10:31Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by dantheman \*
> I’ve often seen the PtB here refer to alterations to vB code as “hacking”… is that usage frowned upon?_
A small percentage of the population does frown upon that use of “hacker”, yes. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: those who do frown on that use of the word are bailing the ocean with a thimble.
---
### Author:  [@scout1222](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scout1222)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/19 "2003-06-03T19:40:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \*
> **…or even a less passive method of jiggery-pokery…**
I’m not sure how the Mods/Admins will feel about this, but I’m inclined to put out an invitation to my fellow Dopers to engage me in any type of jiggery-pokery that they like.
It just sounds so _naughty_!
Thanks for the laugh, **Larry**. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273/20 "2003-06-03T20:40:08Z")
We’ve heard it all before. “White hat”, “black hat”, cracker vs. hacker (and to a lesser extent, hacker/cracker vs. script kiddie.
Pardon me whilst I yawn.
Popular media (IE, outside dedicated PC/computing/gaming resources) calls malicious, semimalicious or even some nonmalicious uses of a computer as “hacking”.
If you travel outside the boundaries of your AOL homepage, some people will call you a hacker.
I got called a hacker once because I had three E-mail addys and two websites.
But please, by all means do carry on with the crusade. I’m sure you’ll have just as much luck as those trying to get the media to stop calling semiautomatic firearms “assault rifles”.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hacking/179273.md?page=2)