I once hacked down a tree, and got in trouble.
All of you need to buy Uplink
Then you’ll get your hacking/cracking fix and not have to screw with anyone else’s systems.
It is a cool rush to break into a system, though. Not that I’m recommending you do so.
Sadly, Doc Nickel, I believe you’re correct. The Media are under tremendous pressure to produce intersting stories, on a tight timeline, that will be read by as many people as possible. As a result, fine distinctions are tossed out, and broad generalizations substituted.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
So, why is it that when one minority is offended by a derogatory implication of a term they use for self-description (“gay”), it’s a moral cause and we should all stop using the bad meaning, but when a different minority is offended by a derogatory implication of a term they use for self-description (“hacker”), they should just suck it up and deal with it, because that’s the way the language works?
RickJay, agreed. But that’s my point – that’s not what was happening there. There was no access gained to any computers, authorized or unauthorized. And I still maintain that what was done wasn’t even particularly skillful. This is why I’m annoyed that Czarcasm called it “hacking”. Not because he didn’t say “cracking”, or some other more/less pejorative word, but because the label he used made no sense.
It’s like if I said I was going rock climbing, and someone told me to enjoy my spelunking. Sure, they both have to do with rock formations … but it just makes no sense.
Ego_Mk2, did you even read the OP? or any of the other posts? Not that there’s no value to what you said, but no one has talked about screwing with systems yet, except in the most abstract of senses. And I’m trying to keep it that way.
Thank you.
Oh, and ENugent, you’re absolutely right. 
Because the language in these cases did not develop in the same way.
Gay is now used as a negative term because it specifically invoked a reference to homosexuals. It was not simply some random word that was picked up and was, coincidentally, a homophone for the identification of the group. It was chosen as negative because it was used by that group.
On the other hand, hacker became a negative term in the data processing community, itself over 25 years ago. While I have seen all the carefully constructed etymologies that clearly delineate the roles of crackers and hackers in the rarified atmosphere of a few universities in the early 70s, I was also a speaker of that jargon in the years immediately following. The word hacker was being used by programmers to mean anyone who bypassed standard coding to achieve an object by 1975 at the very latest–long before anyone in a non-computer-related magazine offered it to an unsuspecting wider public.
Given that programmers (albeit, not the “right sort” of programmers) have used it as a(n occasional) pejorative for almost 30 years, the claim that the negative meaning is being imposed from the outside has little weight.
Huh? I agree that it was being used to mean someone who “bypassed standard coding” (or, at my own alma mater, someone who executed nondestructive but funny pranks that were not necessarily or usually computer-related), but that wasn’t a pejorative usage, as far as I know. (I admit that I didn’t really become a part of the techie community for another ten years or so, but I do read, and I hang out with a lot of older programmers). In fact, a “hacker” was frequently admired (in the community that used the term) for being a really clever guy, because he could use nonstandard methods to create “cool” code.
I agree that the word has become associated with illegal activity, and I rarely use it myself in any context (except “didja see that cool hack where they turned Lobby 7 into Our Lady of the All-Night Tool?”), but what should we call clever programmers who eschew illegal methods?
I was gonna strain myself composing something, but I think I’ll add my “Yeah, what he said” to ENeugent’s post instead. I haven’t heard anyone here use it in a negative fashion.
This thread has been hacked by people who think it’s about the contested usage of the word “hacker.” They should quit hacking and read the OP more closely.
Nor did I say that it was always pejorative. I specifically noted “it as a(n occasional) pejorative.” It was, however, always used to mean someone coding outside the suggested/preferred/mandated guidelines/regulations. Hacking, meaning getting something done through brute force or ingenuity has never been the widespread meaning of the word. The fact that some hacking is good and some hacking is evil does not, somehow, remove the evil possibilities simply because one rather tiny group wishes it were not used in that manner.
Be careful, or you will be accused of improperly using “hacked” when you obviously meant “cracked.”
OK, Tom, now I at least understand where you’re coming from. Personally, I see “hacker” as a value-neutral word - you can hack for good or evil - but I also get annoyed when it’s used as a synonym for illegal/evil activity. (To go back to my slighly facetious analogy, there are good and evil gays, but the word itself should not be pejorative). But I don’t go along with the more extreme idea that if it’s illegal or evil, it’s not hacking. (I would say that “cracking” is a subset of “hacking”, except that some cracking techniques are neither cool nor ingenious, both of which are at least strong connotations of the term “hacking”).
I’ll disagree with this to the extent that I think that a “hack” generally referred to code that worked, at least most of the time, as well as being nonstandard.
StephenG, might I suggest that you start a new thread with out bringing up the cracker/hacker distinction? I too am interested in this judgement call, but I think that from the third post on this one was doomed.
Hal
Winsling, thanks for the advice. Little did I know that a parenthetical comment (and attempt at clarification!) could get me into such trouble. I’m reluctant to start a new thread, for fear it will go in the same direction, never mind that I feel I’ve already made a mountain out of a molehill.
Since the argument seems to be winding down, thanks to the moderating influence of tomndebb – my thanks, sir, for your calm and well-reasoned posts, I’m hoping that the OP will eventually get answered.
If somebody else thought they could do a better job of asking the question contained in the OP, however, I wouldn’t be at all upset.
Stephen, I’ve stated in other threads here that I used to be a bill collector. Here in TX, I went after people that had hot checks and outstanding warrants.
“Skip Tracing” was the portion of my job where I found people who had moved, or were hiding from their obligations. The internet, credit reports, drivers licence progams, as well other public records are generally used to find such information. Truth be told, it took me 45 seconds from the time I clicked on his profile to locate his home phone, address and full name. If I’d had access to my other records, I could have told you when/if he was married, how many times he’d moved in the past several years, possibly his mother’s and father’s names and addresses, and certainly his children. Fortunately, you have to apply as a business to get to some of this info, and I had no intention of looking that far into it. In ten days, I could tell you where he went to elementary school, how many houses he’s owned, car loans, etc. (The only hard people to find are “skippers” and people who know they have something to hide from.)
My point, as stated in the original thead, is that people are very vulnerable through mediums such as this, and should take simple precautions to keep themselves from being exploited.
~J
*Side note, I wonder how much these people are getting paid! I liked THAT part of my job.
my cat hacks - generally hair balls.
they smell like cat food.
Does that count?
Jaade, I apologize, but I don’t remember running into you before this. However, thank you very much for your clarification.
That actually does look like a fun job – I enjoy research, and delving into things to find answers, and solving mysteries. I’m quite impressed by the amount of information you’d be able to discover, though.
I’ve been more-or-less neutral on the subject, but this post convinced me, tomndeb’s rebuttal notwithstanding. Excellent reasoning.
Side hackin’ is the thing to do…
It doesn’t hurt to have a low IQ…
That was one of the parts my wife liked in her collection agency days. At least partly because she was pretty darn good at it, too. She scares me a bit sometimes when putting it to personal use. She’ll be reminded of some childhood friend she hasn’t spoken to since junior high school, and twenty minutes later she’ll have her on the phone. :eek: I don’t even know how I’d start trying to track someone down like that …