4 ms·

You're forgetting that non of this is accidental. It is the media that has deliberately redefined the word "hacker" to equal criminal. They know what it means,

by rickmb 15y ago

You're forgetting that non of this is accidental. It is the media that has deliberately redefined the word "hacker" to equal criminal. They know what it means, and there is no clearer example than this article. Zuckerberg explains what it means in no unclear terms, and still the author chooses to bury it under unfounded accusations. We use another word, they will just do the same thing. We can promote all we like, and they will ignore it. Anyway, who cares. We will still be here long after "the media" is gone and these hacks are either unemployed or doing PR for some corporation or politician. This type of "journalism" is dying anyway.

drostie 15y ago
It's not that they've deliberately redefined the word, but they've misunderstood its context because they didn't research widely enough -- and this is because hacking is not generally sensational. So, if I may offer a pseudo-history: A bunch of people break into a bunch of sites. Real Journalists discover it, and investigate. And I think they're sincere enough in their investigation. Some of the Real Journalists discover that there is a distinction in the culture between the "script-kiddies" and the "hackers". This is the familiar distinction: the hackers make the tools. "Hacker" versus "Software Engineer" is I suppose like "amateur" versus "professional"; hackers are doing it for the love of programming -- but this distinction is lost in this context where the professionals are agents and spies. Still, the distinction of "hacker" is important because the "script-kiddies" have no idea how to develop the tools, but merely use them to break into systems. And in observing the distinction, the journalists discover that the hackers are much more important, in the sense that people pay them some sort of homage and respect. When the Real Journalists bring this description back to the Media, of course they bring back this sense of respect for the Hackers. But the Media has a problem: we don't really have a word for people who penetrate security measures. "Crackers" are things you eat; "penetration testers" are probably machines at a dildo factory. What we'd really like is to use Dutch grammar. In Dutch, someone who "finds out" things becomes an "outfinder." These people "break in" to things; they should be "inbreakers". We have it in some words like "withhold" -- to hold with -- but it's not a general part of our language. Alas, English is not Dutch and the inbreakers weren't called inbreakers. Instead, just as the Christians are named around the title of their savior, "Christ", so the inbreakers are named around the title of their most-respected "Hacker". Was it a deliberate choice? In one sense yes, in another sense no. There are impersonal forces at work which conspired to fix "hacker" in the mind of the Media as a synonym for "inbreaker" -- but it is a deliberate choice for the Real Journalists to not run stories about the other hackers out there, and to not coin a new word that could be useful for the discussion.

by rickmb 15y ago

drostie 15y ago

It's not that they've deliberately redefined the word, but they've misunderstood its context because they didn't research widely enough -- and this is because hacking is not generally sensational. So, if I may offer a pseudo-history: A bunch of people break into a bunch of sites. Real Journalists discover it, and investigate. And I think they're sincere enough in their investigation. Some of the Real Journalists discover that there is a distinction in the culture between the "script-kiddies" and the "hackers". This is the familiar distinction: the hackers make the tools. "Hacker" versus "Software Engineer" is I suppose like "amateur" versus "professional"; hackers are doing it for the love of programming -- but this distinction is lost in this context where the professionals are agents and spies. Still, the distinction of "hacker" is important because the "script-kiddies" have no idea how to develop the tools, but merely use them to break into systems. And in observing the distinction, the journalists discover that the hackers are much more important, in the sense that people pay them some sort of homage and respect. When the Real Journalists bring this description back to the Media, of course they bring back this sense of respect for the Hackers. But the Media has a problem: we don't really have a word for people who penetrate security measures. "Crackers" are things you eat; "penetration testers" are probably machines at a dildo factory. What we'd really like is to use Dutch grammar. In Dutch, someone who "finds out" things becomes an "outfinder." These people "break in" to things; they should be "inbreakers". We have it in some words like "withhold" -- to hold with -- but it's not a general part of our language. Alas, English is not Dutch and the inbreakers weren't called inbreakers. Instead, just as the Christians are named around the title of their savior, "Christ", so the inbreakers are named around the title of their most-respected "Hacker". Was it a deliberate choice? In one sense yes, in another sense no. There are impersonal forces at work which conspired to fix "hacker" in the mind of the Media as a synonym for "inbreaker" -- but it is a deliberate choice for the Real Journalists to not run stories about the other hackers out there, and to not coin a new word that could be useful for the discussion.