Adam Elteto at
End the Ignorance: Hackers Are Not Crackers
http://elteto.net/end-the-ignorance-hackers-are-not-crackers/
There are two primary reasons the general public views hackers as criminals: the media and ignorance.
In the cutthroat business of producing news that bring in viewers and—consequently– advertising dollars and page views, media outlets are quick to headline their news about computer crimes with the word “hack” peppered all over in heavy doses. Do not get me wrong, I understand that buzzwords sell, and that most news presenters either do not have a profound understanding of computer terminology or the interest to research and explain it. They can also not count on news consumers to take the time in the middle of cyclic-rate channel surfing to pause for a few seconds on a news broadcast to research terminology. With a smartphone permanently glued to many hands even on the couch at home, the majority of viewers probably cannot be bothered to look up a word online. Not even if “there is an app for that”.
Which leads to the second reason hackers get a bad rep: ignorance. The term ”hacker” has an interesting history both in language and in culture. While the primary dictionary definition of “hacker” is someone who hacks, with the secondary being someone who is without talent or skill, computing-related definitions only start at third place, with “computer enthusiast” coming before computer criminal.
There is a whole “controversy” about the use of the word “hacker”, as many computer experts and enthusiasts, who—by dictionary definition—are non-criminal hackers, believe there are better suited terms (cracker, black hat, etc…) to describe cyber criminals.
The question is, will people make an effort to familiarize themselves with relevant terminology to avoid making poor judgments? As our attention spans shorten exponentially, will anyone take time to understand what people who are simply smart with computers do?
If you are inclined to ask ”why bother?”, here is a perfect example of how disastrous ignorance, when combined with power, can be. In 2009, campus police at Boston College applied for a warrant to seize computers from a student with the following justifications:
“…the student being seen with “unknown laptop computers,” which he “says” he was fixing for other students; the student uses multiple names to log on to his computer; and the student uses two different operating systems, including one that is not the “regular B.C. operating system” but instead has “a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.”
In the warrant application, the campus police justified the request by listing police training courses and seminars about computer crime that they attended. I cannot imagine the offensively poor quality of these training sessions (probably some copied-and-pasted slide presentations by a “hacker” (in its definition for someone lacking skill or talent) instructor. Apparently, if someone does not have a graphical user interface, or types fast into the command line, that makes him or her a computer criminal. You can read more about the case at the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s page.
Then there is the news coverage of Anonymous and LulzSec, which are “hacktivist” groups, meaning their members use their computer skills to bring public attention to ideological issues. They are hailed as champions of justice by some, and condemned as criminals by others.
A positive result of the sensationalism surrounding such groups is a discussion about rights and wrongs in computing, and, in a hopeful manner, a better public understanding of the difference between computer “geeks” and criminals.
The important thing is to educate oneself before mass classifying everyone who does not use a mouse or a touch interface as a criminal.
http://elteto.net/end-the-ignorance-hackers-are-not-crackers/
There are two primary reasons the general public views hackers as criminals: the media and ignorance.
In the cutthroat business of producing news that bring in viewers and—consequently– advertising dollars and page views, media outlets are quick to headline their news about computer crimes with the word “hack” peppered all over in heavy doses. Do not get me wrong, I understand that buzzwords sell, and that most news presenters either do not have a profound understanding of computer terminology or the interest to research and explain it. They can also not count on news consumers to take the time in the middle of cyclic-rate channel surfing to pause for a few seconds on a news broadcast to research terminology. With a smartphone permanently glued to many hands even on the couch at home, the majority of viewers probably cannot be bothered to look up a word online. Not even if “there is an app for that”.
Which leads to the second reason hackers get a bad rep: ignorance. The term ”hacker” has an interesting history both in language and in culture. While the primary dictionary definition of “hacker” is someone who hacks, with the secondary being someone who is without talent or skill, computing-related definitions only start at third place, with “computer enthusiast” coming before computer criminal.
There is a whole “controversy” about the use of the word “hacker”, as many computer experts and enthusiasts, who—by dictionary definition—are non-criminal hackers, believe there are better suited terms (cracker, black hat, etc…) to describe cyber criminals.
The question is, will people make an effort to familiarize themselves with relevant terminology to avoid making poor judgments? As our attention spans shorten exponentially, will anyone take time to understand what people who are simply smart with computers do?
If you are inclined to ask ”why bother?”, here is a perfect example of how disastrous ignorance, when combined with power, can be. In 2009, campus police at Boston College applied for a warrant to seize computers from a student with the following justifications:
“…the student being seen with “unknown laptop computers,” which he “says” he was fixing for other students; the student uses multiple names to log on to his computer; and the student uses two different operating systems, including one that is not the “regular B.C. operating system” but instead has “a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.”
In the warrant application, the campus police justified the request by listing police training courses and seminars about computer crime that they attended. I cannot imagine the offensively poor quality of these training sessions (probably some copied-and-pasted slide presentations by a “hacker” (in its definition for someone lacking skill or talent) instructor. Apparently, if someone does not have a graphical user interface, or types fast into the command line, that makes him or her a computer criminal. You can read more about the case at the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s page.
Then there is the news coverage of Anonymous and LulzSec, which are “hacktivist” groups, meaning their members use their computer skills to bring public attention to ideological issues. They are hailed as champions of justice by some, and condemned as criminals by others.
A positive result of the sensationalism surrounding such groups is a discussion about rights and wrongs in computing, and, in a hopeful manner, a better public understanding of the difference between computer “geeks” and criminals.
The important thing is to educate oneself before mass classifying everyone who does not use a mouse or a touch interface as a criminal.