3 ms·

Here you go: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.p... It's linked from t

Here you go: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.p... It's linked from that page you posted. I guess you can be pedantic about the term "hacked," but they claimed their site was deliberately rendered unavailable to commenters by multiple attackers. In the common parlance, deliberately breaking computer shit is called hacking. It may save unneeded stress to make peace with the fact that words can mean one thing to a specialist and something else to all the other native speakers of the language.

mehrdadn 8y ago
> Here you go. It's linked from that page you posted. Uhm, yes, I have eyes, thank you. I think you can assume HNers are generally not obtuse enough to link to a nearly-blank page saying "Statement by FCC" and miss 3 glaringly obvious links referring to the actual statement. I was, indeed, referring to that statement. The very fact that their news release seemed to be missing "hack" or anything equivalent to it is exactly what I was referring to. The difference between "attacked" vs. "hacked" isn't "pedantry" any more than the difference between "arrested" and "convicted" is pedantry. Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, not that you were merely "attacked". Most of the press cares about being responsible with their choice of words, and you really should too. Nobody would say Google or HN or any other site was "hacked" the moment it was DDoS'd. Being hacked requires a security breach, and nowhere that I can see did the FCC claim there was such a thing. So unless they said this elsewhere, this is a recklessly irresponsible choice of words.
- bitunwise 8y ago
  The parent comment noted that words can mean entirely different things, or not, between groups. My 14 year old niece says her Facebook was "hacked" by her friend. She had given her password to her to log in. Words have different meanings between groups, and "hack" seems very loose in use all around. > difference between "arrested" and "convicted" Both of those words have separate definitions in a formal setting (e.g. U.S. Courts). Is there a governing body that everyone regular subscribes to that delineates the difference between "attacked" and "hacked"? It really does not seem a reckless choice of words considering the audience the article is writing for.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Dude... this is TechCrunch, not USA Today. Their target audience is not the average grandma. Literally the title of their own article from May 2017 that they linked back to in this same article said "the FCC's comment system was targeted by DDoS attacks". The word "hack" didn't even appear in the article, just apparently in the tag for some clearly unwarranted reason. Now that they have hot news, they're deciding it grabs more eyeballs to call it a "hack" rather than a DDoS attack. If this kind of slander (yes, this would be slander if you could slander a government agency... they are accusing the FCC of a lie it apparently never uttered) had been about almost any other topic, the HN crowd would've grabbed their pitchforks already, bashing the reporters for being so tech-illiterate that they can't tell the difference between a successful defense and a failed defense. But we all hate the FCC now, so we're chill with whatever reckless fact-changing and slander that we can make stick on them. And apparently we defend each other in doing so.
- stonogo 8y ago
  > Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, Nah. They claimed the site was rendered unfit for purpose by malicious attackers. If you don't think denial of service is a security event, you'd better start writing lots of angry letters to MITRE, because we need to revoke about 90% of the CVEs that have been issued over the years. I'm not sure how to phrase this politely, but you are not the arbiter of language, TechCrunch is not beholden to any higher a linguistic standard than anyone else, and the word hack has been associated with DDoS attacks for years and years (a small sampling of references follow). I don't particularly care about the FCC or this event, but this seems like a really strange hill to die on. Please note that I am not suggesting that you actually intend to expire on a topological elevation gradient; this is merely a figure of speech that means something else to some people (cf https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hill_to_die_on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hill_to_die_on). "This class of hack, known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, has been around for a while.": http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/ddos-attack-hacker-profit/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/ddos-attack-hacker-profit/ "What is a DDoS Hack and How Do You Avoid Them?" (video): https://www.wired.com/2016/01/hacker-lexicon-what-are-dos-and-ddos-attacks/ https://www.wired.com/2016/01/hacker-lexicon-what-are-dos-an... "DDoS hack attack targets Church of Scientology": https://www.scmagazine.com/ddos-hack-attack-targets-church-of-scientology/article/554145/ https://www.scmagazine.com/ddos-hack-attack-targets-church-o... "Hack Attack Gums Up Authorize.Net": https://www.wired.com/2004/09/hack-attack-gums-up-authorize-net/ https://www.wired.com/2004/09/hack-attack-gums-up-authorize-...
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > this seems like a really strange hill to die on. Please note that I am not suggesting that you actually intend to expire on a topological elevation gradient > I'm not sure how to phrase this politely Yes, I (again) noticed. First in your initial comment, and now again in your second comment. You really haven't even been trying. I'm not sure what kind of a reply you expect when you treat people like they're stupid, but if it's anything positive, you won't get it.
  - vlan0 8y ago
    You highlighted an issue in all of mainstream media's use of the term "hacking". They are extremely liberal with their use. It's very tongue-in-cheek to claim an organization has been hacked because someone(s) launched a DDoS. It's like someone claiming they perform their own auto repairs, but in actuality all they do is fill the windshield fluid and replace their air filter.

mehrdadn 8y ago

> Here you go. It's linked from that page you posted. Uhm, yes, I have eyes, thank you. I think you can assume HNers are generally not obtuse enough to link to a nearly-blank page saying "Statement by FCC" and miss 3 glaringly obvious links referring to the actual statement. I was, indeed, referring to that statement. The very fact that their news release seemed to be missing "hack" or anything equivalent to it is exactly what I was referring to. The difference between "attacked" vs. "hacked" isn't "pedantry" any more than the difference between "arrested" and "convicted" is pedantry. Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, not that you were merely "attacked". Most of the press cares about being responsible with their choice of words, and you really should too. Nobody would say Google or HN or any other site was "hacked" the moment it was DDoS'd. Being hacked requires a security breach, and nowhere that I can see did the FCC claim there was such a thing. So unless they said this elsewhere, this is a recklessly irresponsible choice of words.

bitunwise 8y ago
The parent comment noted that words can mean entirely different things, or not, between groups. My 14 year old niece says her Facebook was "hacked" by her friend. She had given her password to her to log in. Words have different meanings between groups, and "hack" seems very loose in use all around. > difference between "arrested" and "convicted" Both of those words have separate definitions in a formal setting (e.g. U.S. Courts). Is there a governing body that everyone regular subscribes to that delineates the difference between "attacked" and "hacked"? It really does not seem a reckless choice of words considering the audience the article is writing for.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Dude... this is TechCrunch, not USA Today. Their target audience is not the average grandma. Literally the title of their own article from May 2017 that they linked back to in this same article said "the FCC's comment system was targeted by DDoS attacks". The word "hack" didn't even appear in the article, just apparently in the tag for some clearly unwarranted reason. Now that they have hot news, they're deciding it grabs more eyeballs to call it a "hack" rather than a DDoS attack. If this kind of slander (yes, this would be slander if you could slander a government agency... they are accusing the FCC of a lie it apparently never uttered) had been about almost any other topic, the HN crowd would've grabbed their pitchforks already, bashing the reporters for being so tech-illiterate that they can't tell the difference between a successful defense and a failed defense. But we all hate the FCC now, so we're chill with whatever reckless fact-changing and slander that we can make stick on them. And apparently we defend each other in doing so.
stonogo 8y ago
> Being "hacked" means your system's security was breached, Nah. They claimed the site was rendered unfit for purpose by malicious attackers. If you don't think denial of service is a security event, you'd better start writing lots of angry letters to MITRE, because we need to revoke about 90% of the CVEs that have been issued over the years. I'm not sure how to phrase this politely, but you are not the arbiter of language, TechCrunch is not beholden to any higher a linguistic standard than anyone else, and the word hack has been associated with DDoS attacks for years and years (a small sampling of references follow). I don't particularly care about the FCC or this event, but this seems like a really strange hill to die on. Please note that I am not suggesting that you actually intend to expire on a topological elevation gradient; this is merely a figure of speech that means something else to some people (cf https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hill_to_die_on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hill_to_die_on). "This class of hack, known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, has been around for a while.": http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/ddos-attack-hacker-profit/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/ddos-attack-hacker-profit/ "What is a DDoS Hack and How Do You Avoid Them?" (video): https://www.wired.com/2016/01/hacker-lexicon-what-are-dos-and-ddos-attacks/ https://www.wired.com/2016/01/hacker-lexicon-what-are-dos-an... "DDoS hack attack targets Church of Scientology": https://www.scmagazine.com/ddos-hack-attack-targets-church-of-scientology/article/554145/ https://www.scmagazine.com/ddos-hack-attack-targets-church-o... "Hack Attack Gums Up Authorize.Net": https://www.wired.com/2004/09/hack-attack-gums-up-authorize-net/ https://www.wired.com/2004/09/hack-attack-gums-up-authorize-...
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > this seems like a really strange hill to die on. Please note that I am not suggesting that you actually intend to expire on a topological elevation gradient > I'm not sure how to phrase this politely Yes, I (again) noticed. First in your initial comment, and now again in your second comment. You really haven't even been trying. I'm not sure what kind of a reply you expect when you treat people like they're stupid, but if it's anything positive, you won't get it.
- vlan0 8y ago
  You highlighted an issue in all of mainstream media's use of the term "hacking". They are extremely liberal with their use. It's very tongue-in-cheek to claim an organization has been hacked because someone(s) launched a DDoS. It's like someone claiming they perform their own auto repairs, but in actuality all they do is fill the windshield fluid and replace their air filter.