On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:08 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:13 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:22:40 -0000, "Sholes, Joshua" said: >> >>> If one came up in this field with a mentor who was old school, or if one >>> is old school oneself, one tends use the original (as I understand it) >>> definitions--a "cracker" breaks security or obtains data unlawfully, a >>> "hacker" is someone who likes ethically playing (in the "joyful >>> exploration" sense) with complicated systems. >> >> For the old-schoolers, a "cracker" would violate the CFAA to get into a >> system. >> >> A hacker would produce a long list of ways to get in without violating the >> CFAA. >> >> Unfortunately, we no longer have a well-established word for the latter >> class of people. > > > You're all talkin' 1990s redefinitions here. 1980s crackers cracked > the copy protections on software (DRM in modern parlance) while > hackers broke in to online systems. Even that is a redefinition. > Before that, hackers were anyone who jovially pranked a system in a > manner typically unlawful which involved creativity and technical > challenge. > > For example, "hackers" might arrange for live cattle to appear on the > top of the great dome at MIT. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin
And Bill documents yet another redefinition. Prior to that time, at MIT a
“hacker” produced a novel variation of technology using it in ways not
previously envisioned but not necessarily unlawful.
Mating two different generations of telephone keysets or reducing a complex
rack mount filter to a single small circuit board with an FET or two are just a
couple of examples. One was just a “hack”, the other an “elegant hack”. We
just called the moving of the rocket a “prank”.
Cutler
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
