"The message sent was of the ‘Extreme Alert’ type and contained the word ‘misanthropy’ – which means hatred towards humanity. It is probably a hacker attack,” the agency’s statement said."
As this happens whenever there is an intrusion reported in the press, the word "hacker" is often misused:
"There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them."
As programmers in programming culture, we have a distinction between hacker and, potentially, cracker that no ordinary person has. ESR’s prescriptivism is pretty much worthless in this respect: words mean what people think they mean and what people use them for, and programmers do not have a monopoly on how people use the term.
OED has the “computer intruder” sense first cited in 1963, and the “enthusiastic programmer” sense first in 1969 (“now much less common than sense 3a”). Cracker first appears in 1968.
Besides, it is easy to disambiguate which meaning people mean. “Hacker attack” can only refer to the common usage of the term, not programming-culture usage.
Thanks for highlighting the even earlier term from 1963. If that is the case, then why don't journalists use the word "computer intruder" instead of hacker, when it's less a catchall?
The funny thing about these comments is that most of the replies to my comment have been more defensive than my own. I wasn't suggesting a monopoly on the term, and I wasn't suggesting "hacker" shouldn't be ever be used. I just said it's not very accurate, and the average non-technical reader may not know the difference.
I think you misunderstood. The 1963 term is "hacker", and its 1963 meaning is "computer intruder". I.e. the journalists are using the earlier definition and the definition referred to by "Hacker News" came later.
Ah, I see now that journos were referring to the older definition of hacker. I suppose newer interpretations have a ways to go in gaining acceptance, though I am not sure why the phrase hacker/cracker is even used, when other words could be used too, like tamperer (for intrusion) and tinkerer (for non-builder/non-intruder (i.e. on their own equipment, or a lab's equipment, and learner). Kind of like the phrase "me and the gang," although that word might never gain a total conversion, nor should.
At this point, it’s just you misusing the word. You WERE correct; it did mean the builders rather than the breakers. But to greater society outside of the tech industry, hacking is hacking, they don’t need a word to describe builders, and crackers sounds dumb and no one outside the tech industry would know what you were talking about. A cracker is a snack and a dated slang word to refer to white people.
No one has used the word “hacker” with this esoteric / old school context in over 30 years.
The name of the site you are writing this on is a usage of this "esoteric" meaning.
It was an intentional, near-archaic throwback even at the time HN was founded. Paul Graham has written about it, you can probably still find his blog written about it 20 years ago.
But that is serves as a valid counterargument to your claim is something you agree with?
the internet would disagree with you. For example the following search term finds hundreds of results from the last few months alone.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22i%20hacked%20togeth...
Cracker News was taken
This is so lame. It's not up to you to define what's a "real hacker". Building and breaking are not exclusive to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I didn’t realise that people still fought this fight. it’s time to drop it, dude. It’s truly blatant language prescriptivism at this point.
This is a blast from the past for sure. To me, someone who read 2600 magazine in the dial-up era, that argument seemed passé 15 years ago. The world at large agreed many years ago that the word ‘hacker’ commonly connotes system penetration, or at least security circumvention. Words can have multiple meanings.
It's not so much a fight as a reminder of the technical words that actually distinguish one type from another. Are hackers considered ethical in the press today? 40 years of movies and press articles hasn't exactly made the idea of "white hat" a known term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)
It's kind of like Australia or the UK saying kids are "hacking" their PCs to use VPNS. There can be a very legitimate use of tools, but the portrayal of users bypassing blocks could just as easily be painted in a negative light.
One time someone made a joke or observation, 20 years or so ago, that their Myspace page was "hacked" because someone "posted on their wall". It's obviously not that misused, but just labeled that way when misinformed.
Surely you're not quoting Eric Raymond with a straight face?
This is like a new philosophy student objecting to someone saying, “This begs the question of whether…” It’s essentially a category error, an incorrect application of context.
You - and Eric Raymond, who believes he’s an incarnation of the god Pan - are both using a meaning of the word that has only ever been used in a relatively tiny subculture. That meaning has no bearing on its broader use.
I think the usage of the word in the CNN article is more like a news report saying there was a bear attack. Bears hunt salmon, eat berries and veggies, since they're omnivores. A report is only going to be typically referring to bears in reference to an attack on humans, but bears have other normal activities, like communing with other bears, taking a nap, raising cubs and going on walks. In that sense, hackers do partake in multiple, non attack activities.
It would be just as unusual to have a story about hackers doing acts of good will, like helping old ladies cross the street. But a news report isn't going to cover that. "Hacker altruist volunteers at soup kitchen" might make a headline, I suppose.
And remember, kids, knowing how to program or wanting really badly to figure out how things work inside doesn't make you a hacker! Hacking boxes makes you a "hacker" ! That's right! Write your local representatives at Wikipedia/urbandictionary/OED and let them know that hackers are people that gain unauthorized access/privileges to computerized systems! Linus Torvalds isn't a hacker! Richard Stallman isn't a hacker! Niels Provos isn't a hacker! Fat/ugly, maybe! Hackers, no! And what is up with the use of the term "cracker"? As far as I'm concerned, that term applies to people that bypass copyright protection mechanisms. Vladimir Levin? HACKER. phiber optik? HACKER. Kevin Mitnick? OK, maybe a gay/bad one, but still WAS a "hacker." Hope that's clear.
-- The UNIX Terrorist
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
That, too, is an actual distinction that actually matters.
- Sent from my Android/Linux phone, because the GNU ones aren't practical yet.
You are both correct, although I'd like to point out that Linux Foundation draws the line at GPLv2, whereas GNU believes their kernel ought to be GPLv3, and that opens another can of worms. See BSD0: https://spdx.org/licenses/preview/0BSD.html https://landley.net/toybox/license.html