Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,alt.folklore.computers X-Original-Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers From: Russell Schulz Reply-To: Russell Schulz Subject: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Message-ID: <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:55:53 -0500 References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> Organization: Private System, Toronto, ON, Canada MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mail-Policy: you may reply to this message. you may NOT add me to a list. User-Agent: rnr/2.42 Lines: 28 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!hub.org!hub.org!alpha3!Russell_Schulz trebor@sirius.com quotes and writes: >> Please be careful how you use the term "hacker". In the above do you >> mean cracker? > > Oh, give it up... In the minds of America at large, hackers break into > computers and crackers are what you give the parrot. > > The word cracker was invented for politically correct purposes. The first > crackers indeed were hackers. [ removed my analogy with doctors/male/female -- wrong connotation :-) ] the first lockpicks indeed were locksmiths. the word `thief' was invented for politically correct purposes. now, imagine how little a non-lockpick locksmith wants to be lumped in with all the thieves using a picker they got out of Soldier of Fortune. now, imagine how even LESS a non-cracker hacker wants to be lumped in with all the thieves, vandals, and 3l33t d00dz using r00tkit. not everyone wants `hacker' equated with `thief'. the question is, in which month will there finally be enough non-cracker hackers with enough power to finally convince the media to correct its usage? -- Russell_Schulz@locutus.ofB.ORG Shad 86c ###### From: keszler@rrnet.com (Scott R. Keszler) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:13:16 GMT Organization: SRK Consulting Lines: 20 Message-ID: <713gt6$a9v@enews4.newsguy.com> References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-322.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!srkc In article <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG>, Russell Schulz wrote: >not everyone wants `hacker' equated with `thief'. the question is, in >which month will there finally be enough non-cracker hackers with enough >power to finally convince the media to correct its usage? October, 1993. Unfortunately, september-never-ended-date tells me that we have not yet entered that month: rrnet$ snedate Today is Monday, September 1882, 1993 -- Dead hard drives make great clocks: http://rrnet.com/~keszler/hddclock.html ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: 27 Oct 1998 22:37:43 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 51 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Russell Schulz writes: > > trebor@sirius.com quotes and writes: > > >> Please be careful how you use the term "hacker". In the above do you > >> mean cracker? Nope. AFAIK, he meant dark side hackers (a.k.a. haqrs), not crackers (people who crack copy prevention, license enforcement or encryption systems). > > Oh, give it up... In the minds of America at large, hackers break into > > computers and crackers are what you give the parrot. > > > > The word cracker was invented for politically correct purposes. The first > > crackers indeed were hackers. Nope. It was stolen (sorry, approximated :-)) for PC reasons. > now, imagine how even LESS a non-cracker hacker wants to be lumped in > with all the thieves, vandals, and 3l33t d00dz using r00tkit. The 3l1t3 haqrs are hackers, the dark side of hacking. Interestingly, the real crackers also have an dark side, the warez d00dz. Just with the difference, that those established their separate name: Warez. Instead of keeping on abusing the cracker name, Hackers should start pointing out the difference to the Haqrs. Perhaps that would stick, it is at least cute enough. Definitely it would be more honnest (where is that hacker ethic about propper attribution gone to?). > not everyone wants `hacker' equated with `thief'. the question is, in > which month will there finally be enough non-cracker hackers with enough > power to finally convince the media to correct its usage? Perhaps after they stop denying that haqing grew out of hacking? Neil "usually Hacker, sometimes Cracker, never Haqr or Warez" Franklin -- home: neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Microsoft is Software Communism, Fight for GNU Freedom! ###### From: Ariel Scolnicov Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: 27 Oct 1998 10:20:44 +0200 Organization: Netvision Israel Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> NNTP-Posting-Host: bioserv.compugen.co.il X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 909476087 15471 194.90.197.146 (27 Oct 1998 08:14:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@netvision.net.il NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Oct 1998 08:14:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!btnet-peer!btnet!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-penn.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-feed.netvision.net.il!194.90.1.15.MISMATCH!news!not-for-mail Russell Schulz writes: > trebor@sirius.com quotes and writes: > > >> Please be careful how you use the term "hacker". In the above do you > >> mean cracker? > > > > Oh, give it up... In the minds of America at large, hackers break into > > computers and crackers are what you give the parrot. > > > > The word cracker was invented for politically correct purposes. The first > > crackers indeed were hackers. > > [ removed my analogy with doctors/male/female -- wrong connotation :-) ] > [remove another good analogy] > > not everyone wants `hacker' equated with `thief'. the question is, in > which month will there finally be enough non-cracker hackers with enough > power to finally convince the media to correct its usage? October 1993? -- Ariel Scolnicov ###### From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:59:06 GMT Organization: . Lines: 81 Message-ID: <363b8146.48890160@news.uunet.be> References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-148-201.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail Also sprach Neil Franklin on 27 Oct 1998 22:37:43 +0100 to alt.folklore.computers: > The 3l1t3 haqrs are hackers, the dark side of hacking. > > Interestingly, the real crackers also have an dark side, the warez > d00dz. Just with the difference, that those established their > separate name: Warez. > > Instead of keeping on abusing the cracker name, Hackers should start > pointing out the difference to the Haqrs. Perhaps that would stick, it > is at least cute enough. > > Definitely it would be more honnest (where is that hacker ethic about > propper attribution gone to?). Neil, is this really you? It's not only the contents ('abusing the cracker name') that made me rise an eyebrow, this piece also contains the largest number of speling erorrs I ever saw in a post from you (and I mean the unintended 'typing too fast' ones: propper, honnest, 'an dark'). Matches perfectly with the subject :-) If the path didn't trace to the same host as in your other posts, I'd be yelling "rape^H^H^H^Hforgery!" now. FWIW, this is my point of view (it's your good netizen's right not to agree, and BTW, please don't take what I said above as an ad hominem attack): A hacker can (and will) crack a protection here or there if it's necessary, but that doesn't make him a cracker. A cracker spends most or all of his energy on cracking, a hacker does it when it's needed (or just for the fun of it, if he has the time to spare). A cracker (or let's say, 99 % of them) cracks to gain profit from it (be it financial or in an other form like prestige), a hacker does it because he [feels he] needs to: to make backup copies of the only set of installation disks he got with his site license, to fix something in a program the original authors don't support anymore, to (un-announcedly) check the security on his friend's server and (anonymously, of course) point him to security holes, etc. This does *not* exclude the possibility that some crackers may match the skill level of experienced hackers, I just don't like to refer to them that way: it's either h* or cr*, not both. It also doesn't exclude the possibility that a student-day cracker can become a professional-life hacker later (he's even likely to write some real good protection schemes), or vice versa. And LBNL, crackers tend to refer to *themselves* as hackers. A real hacker will be flattered if you call him one, but he won't describe himself that way. The terms "bogus" and "wannabe" often apply here. Just because I can't stop: {{hacker, benign}, {cracker, malicious}}; Warez doods: the 'dark side of crackers'? Not in a million lightyears, imo. Warez doods collect the work of crackers (in really mind-boggling amounts of software that get stored somewhere never to be used again, or only to get copied over to the next d00d's discs), seeking for recognition through the number of digits in the total amount of megabytes they "own", but the majority of them can't even crack the encryption of a double-ROT13-encoded etext if they have the original to compare. And finally, to me, "abusing the cracker name" sounds like "painting the grass green" (I did have something about black people and ditto paint in mind, but I don't want to sound like a racist.) ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: 31 Oct 1998 20:48:08 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 171 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <705f3f$lls@news.or.intel.com> <705ook$ilr@edrn.newsguy.com> <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> <363b8146.48890160@news.uunet.be> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: > > Also sprach Neil Franklin on 27 Oct > 1998 22:37:43 +0100 to alt.folklore.computers: Sorry for the long delay in answering. I have just had two 18 hour out of the house days. Usenet reading/writing drops to zero on these :-(. > > Instead of keeping on abusing the cracker name, Hackers should start > > Neil, is this really you? Actually yes. Just writing some very controversial stuff (see below for an second attempt) and not having enough time to either propperly phrase it and proofread it (and being annoyed which reduced concentration). > It's not only the contents ('abusing the cracker name') that made See below for an better explanation of what I was on about. > of speling erorrs I ever saw in a post from you (and I mean the > unintended 'typing too fast' ones: propper, honnest, 'an dark'). That comes from not having time to proofread as I usually do. I am actually an really lousy typist (sort of one error every 15..20 keys). So I usually proofread every post 3 times to catch them. Last wednesday I simply did not have enough time and concentration to do that properly. So the typos got through :-(. > If the path didn't trace to the same host as in your other posts, > I'd be yelling "rape^H^H^H^Hforgery!" now. Thanks to the good old Path: line :-). > FWIW, this is my point of view (it's your good netizen's right > not to agree Of course. I hope I can make my point clearer below. > and BTW, please don't take what I said above as an > ad hominem attack): Sure not. I fact thanks for the diligence in recognizing and pointing out an possible fake (even it it wasn't one). Thats a good colleague! > A hacker can (and will) crack a protection here or there if it's > necessary, but that doesn't make him a cracker. Sure. > A cracker spends most or all of his energy on cracking, a hacker > does it when it's needed (or just for the fun of it, if he has > the time to spare). An cracker according to todays usage of the word, yes. > A cracker (or let's say, 99 % of them) cracks to gain profit from > it (be it financial or in an other form like prestige) Again: a cracker according to todays usage of the word, yes. > It also doesn't exclude the possibility that a student-day > cracker can become a professional-life hacker later (he's even Now where do I know that one from :-)? > Just because I can't stop: > {{hacker, benign}, {cracker, malicious}}; Thanks for that consise formulation of todays usage. > And finally, to me, "abusing the cracker name" sounds like So and now the hopefully better written text. What I was refering to was the remark (in the original post and actually nicely demonstrated by you, thanks for it) that today hackers use the word cracker both for people who break copy protection and break into system, but allways for malicious reasons. This usage actually is an exact parallel to the way the press and non hackers use the word hacker for people who break into and damage computers for malicious reasons: Real hackers know the original meaning of the word hacker and that the popular use of the word hacker is an abuse. And they complain about it, as did the writer of the post I replied to. That is right to complain. But then they go on and use the word cracker for these people. And that is wrong, because that word also once had an different meaning which is being abused. Originally cracker simply refered to all people who break copy prevention systems (and not to those breaking into computers). Like hacker it refered to the type of work being done and did not contain any reference to whether this being good or malicious. Ob a.f.c: In the microcomputing days (late 70s and early 80s) programs often had very obnoxious copy prevention systems that badly harmed paying users. Example: on every program start print text: "Open manual at page x and read first word on line y and type it in", x and y varying each time (making it impossible to memorize them) and the manual being black print on dark brown to foil photocopiers (making reading it difficult). Cracking was in those days the term for the action of ridding a program of such behaviour. Legitimate users often put the original disks unopened onto a shelf and used an cracked version to avoid this! _Some_ people then went on to spread such copies to anyone (including those without originals) and that gave cracking its bad name it has today. Compare that with the evolution of the meaning of the word hacking: Originally it refered to those who really grok computers and can get them to do lots of things normal people can't get them to do. _Some_ people used this knowledge to break into computers (inluding those they have no legitimate access to) and gave hacking its bad name it has todey in the public eye. Today hackers are trying (often in vane) to fight this abuse of the word hacker. For this they are trying to establish an other word for this: cracker. But in doing this they are exactly repeating the abuse. And even for the same reason: not knowing any better. As in the olden days I did quite a bit of cracking (in its original word sense) and know others who still do it I dislike this abuse of the word just as much as I dislike the abuse of the word hacker. And some times when someone (like the original (cross-)poster) blatantly does so I try to set the record straight. Particularly as this was an outsider making this claim on a.f.c, where we usually have an interest in history and correcting false claims. In the case of the original crackers the dark side ones have adoted their own name for themselves: warez, I think the best we can do in this case it to also try to establisch for the dark side hackers their own term for themselves: haqrs. So I hope that I have cleared up the confusion my post generated. -- home: neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ ####### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Russell Schulz Reply-To: Russell Schulz Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Message-ID: <19981031.125635.4F6.rnr.w164w@locutus.ofB.ORG> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:56:35 -0500 References: <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com> <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> Organization: Private System, Toronto, ON, Canada MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mail-Policy: you may reply to this message. you may NOT add me to a list. User-Agent: rnr/2.42 Lines: 17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!hub.org!hub.org!alpha3!Russell_Schulz Neil Franklin writes: >>>> Please be careful how you use the term "hacker". In the above do you >>>> mean cracker? > > Nope. AFAIK, he meant dark side hackers (a.k.a. haqrs) also known as -- by whom?! > Instead of keeping on abusing the cracker name, Hackers should start > pointing out the difference to the Haqrs. Perhaps that would stick, it > is at least cute enough. you've GOT to realize that this homonym is probably WORSE! -- Russell_Schulz@locutus.ofB.ORG Shad 86c ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Date: 02 Nov 1998 21:48:58 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 45 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <362975e8.16926993@news.erols.com> <362cc90c.2938325@news.sirius.com > <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> <19981031.125635.4F6.rnr.w164w@locutus.ofB.ORG> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Russell Schulz writes: > > Neil Franklin writes: > > > > Nope. AFAIK, he meant dark side hackers (a.k.a. haqrs) > > also known as -- by whom?! Called so by them selves. The full term is 3l1t3 (elite) haqrs. But it is often shortened. At least it was so the last time (about 3/4 year ago) when I had a 2 week stint on reading alt.hacker and alt.hacking. > > Instead of keeping on abusing the cracker name, Hackers should start > > pointing out the difference to the Haqrs. Perhaps that would stick, it > > is at least cute enough. > > you've GOT to realize that this homonym is probably WORSE! I do not think it would be worse. Today all hackers are regarded as bad, that is about the worst state possible. Trying to educate the public, that 2 things which (for the public) look the same, are related but not equal, may well be easier than trying to educate them that these 2 things are totally different. Particularly when one is an (mutant and degenerated) offshot from the other. The public may not know our history and as such fail in making the distinction, but it does have an highly developed bullshit filter which triggers on attempts (usually by politicians) to whitewash history. Trying to establish "crackers" as something totally different to hackers triggers this mechanism. So trying an different line of attack may well have more success. Of course it may simply have the same amount of non-success. But I doubt that it will have less success. -- home: neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Microsoft is Software Communism, Fight for GNU Freedom! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Russell Schulz Reply-To: Russell Schulz Subject: Re: `cracker' vs. `hacker' again (was Re: Article on Wired...) Message-ID: <19981102.224424.0G8.rnr.w164w@locutus.ofB.ORG> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:44:24 -0500 References: <19981026.105553.4Z1.rnr.w164w_-_@locutus.ofB.ORG> <363b8146.48890160@news.uunet.be> Organization: Private System, Toronto, ON, Canada MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mail-Policy: you may reply to this message. you may NOT add me to a list. User-Agent: rnr/2.43 Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!hub.org!hub.org!alpha3!Russell_Schulz Neil Franklin writes: > But then they go on and use the word cracker for these people. And > that is wrong, because that word also once had an different meaning > which is being abused. > > Originally cracker simply refered to all people who break copy > prevention systems (and not to those breaking into computers). it has been extended (and when's the last time you saw popular software with copy-protection on it)? whereas the `calling thieves hackers' is a very different change; it's a change in intent. so, by the first I see it as irrelevant, and by the second, trivial. -- Russell_Schulz@locutus.ofB.ORG Shad 86c