6 ms·

More accurate headline: "Emmanual Goldstein (once again) gets his knickers in a twist over someone using the word 'hacker' in a way he doesn't like...." It's a

More accurate headline: "Emmanual Goldstein (once again) gets his knickers in a twist over someone using the word 'hacker' in a way he doesn't like...." It's actually interesting that there's very little pretense about what the major issue is.... While I don't think I could support something like a DoS attack, I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker. I guess it's because I find it a little hypocritical...he invariable downplays things like this (as he does in the Press Release) by saying "anyone could have done this, it takes no skill at all...." The problem is he's always saying stuff like "you don't need skill to be a hacker, you just need the hacker spirit"...the hacker spirit being a sort of inquisitive, industrious, and mischevious nature. 2600 Magazine presents all manner of simple and no-skill-needed activities as "hacking", so please forgive my bemusement... It's also funny that it seems like a lot of his associates don't feel the same way... there are occasionally embarrassed silences on Off The Hook when Emannual goes on about how some incident he doesn't approve of "isn't hacking". It seems to me what Emmanual really wants to do is impose arbitrary (though possibly agreeable) moral restrictions on what "hacking" is, and simply changes the definition to suit that without having to admit it. If I'm a little sarcastic, it's because I truly believe this is counter-productive and will backfire. Emmanuel will say "this takes no skill at all, anyone can do it". John Q Public and Suzy Cream-cheese will think "I sure as heck dunno how to do this....it's pretty impressive to me". Meanwhile Emmanual tries to slap down any attempt to distinguish between ethical hackers and the "blackhats". ..."Why do we need that?" he'll say..."We already have a word: 'criminals'". Well....because there clearly is a phenomenon in need of a description here....and "computer criminals" doesn't have quite as nice a ring and isn't as descriptive. Nobody complains we don't need the word "pick-pocket" because we can just call them "criminals".... I think it's a losing battle. Emmanual is bolstering (through implication) the opinion that "any complicated trick is hacking"...and his assurances that this is simple are discarded by people who consider it magical. Meanwhile, he gives them no alternatives...it's "hackers" or nothing....so of course they go with "hackers". Personally, I'm happy if they just qualify it with something like "black-hat hackers"... Overall I'm inclined to agree that these shenanigans are likely unproductive, not difficult to do, and hard to support ethically....still, I think it's fair to say they fit the rather liberal rubric 2600 generally uses to judge what constitutes "hacking" or at least what belongs in a "hacking magazine".

timtadh 16y ago
"I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker." Why do people get upset about correct usage and definitions of the word hacker. If one closely examine statements like: ''' These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. ''' -- Emmanuel Goldstein one understands Emmanuel's main concern is with correctly portraying the "hacker community." This means he believes in an ideal hacker community. One composed of certain types of individuals with certain types of beliefs. Whether or not such a community has every existed is unimportant. Emmanuel and others like him, hold up the community as what we should be striving for. Emmanuel is not the first person to use such language. We can trace many of these sentiments back to RMS. See my article on the subject "Interpreting the Free Software Movement as Religion" (although perhaps I should have titled it Interpreting the Free Software Movement in the Context of Religion :sigh:). I intepret the Free Software movement's philosophy using a critical religious theory. What emerges is a portrait of a movement that from a certain point of view is concerned with highly religious subject: the demarcation of the sacred vs the profane. The sacred is this past ideal community, and the movement strives to return to it. For the detailed analysis see: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-movement-as-re http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m... [edit: clarity]
- M1573RMU74710N 16y ago
  I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it? That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community". I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is: "The hacker community is the stuff I approve of" In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics. The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects." Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics. It's a state of mind.... It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole. To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack. Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad. Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like. I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...

timtadh 16y ago

"I always find it amusing when Emmanuel feels the need to throw a hissy fit about the "correct" use of the word hacker." Why do people get upset about correct usage and definitions of the word hacker. If one closely examine statements like: ''' These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. ''' -- Emmanuel Goldstein one understands Emmanuel's main concern is with correctly portraying the "hacker community." This means he believes in an ideal hacker community. One composed of certain types of individuals with certain types of beliefs. Whether or not such a community has every existed is unimportant. Emmanuel and others like him, hold up the community as what we should be striving for. Emmanuel is not the first person to use such language. We can trace many of these sentiments back to RMS. See my article on the subject "Interpreting the Free Software Movement as Religion" (although perhaps I should have titled it Interpreting the Free Software Movement in the Context of Religion :sigh:). I intepret the Free Software movement's philosophy using a critical religious theory. What emerges is a portrait of a movement that from a certain point of view is concerned with highly religious subject: the demarcation of the sacred vs the profane. The sacred is this past ideal community, and the movement strives to return to it. For the detailed analysis see: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-movement-as-re http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m... [edit: clarity]

M1573RMU74710N 16y ago
I totally understand and can appreciate that....my problem is: who gets to decide what constitutes "the hacker community" and what's accurate about it? That's where I take umbrage... I don't think Emmanual is concerned with correctly portraying "the hacker community". I think he's concerned with it being portrayed the way he considers it to be....that is: "The hacker community is the stuff I approve of" In reality "the hacker community" is disjointed and comprised of a lot of individuals of varying skill levels, morals, and politics. The problem is Emmanuel doesn't seem to be saying "Hey hey now...these people do not represent the entirety of the hacker community....they possibly represent part of it's darker side...but let's talk about the positive aspects." Instead it seems to me, he seems to be saying "There is no bad side to hacking! Everything I approve of is hacking, everything I don't is not! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The problem is no matter how much they may overlap and be intertwined, hacking is at heart something removed from politics and ethics. It's a state of mind.... It's true there are certain tendencies in the Hacker community...laudable ones....but the same is true of Artists but nobody pitches a fit about Hitler not being a painter because he was an asshole. To be a painter, you must apply paint to a canvas...end of story. To be hacker you must hack. Hacks are big, hacks are small. There are easy hacks and hard hacks...hacks for good and hacks for bad. Better I think to distinguish the good painters who paint well and for the right reasons rather than trying to twist the definition of what it is to paint to only cover the painters you like. I completely understand wanting to distance yourself from the script-kiddies....but I feel the way to do that is by adding information....not trying to remove it. A meme is a hard thing to beat...