Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dataio.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!bjorn
From: bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Definition of hacker (argument)
Message-ID: <798@dataio.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 11:29:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: dataio.798
Posted: Wed Sep  4 11:29:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 09:22:55 EDT
References: <787@brl-tgr.ARPA> <788@dataio.UUCP> <137@graffiti.UUCP>
Reply-To: bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson
Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <137@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> Wrong again.  The press sets the definitions these days (not that it should,
>
> 								...Now then,
> what does "hacker" mean in this subculture? Depends who you talk to, right? 
> It's not hard & fast like "stoned".
>
> Point made.

Point conceeded, but wrong point.  The point is that with the mass market press
using "hacker" as the definition of someone who uses his/her computer skills
to break into or break down a computer, that definition is the accepted one.
There are always articles about "Hackers break into DODs computer, Read top
secret documents", etc.  Furthermore, there are a number of books out like:
"Out of the Inner Circle: Confessions of a Hacker".  These definitions
will override anything that we would like to use.

"Stoned" and "Pot" came into their common definitions because the press picked
up on them and published them widely.  Yes, I agree that they were first used
by a certain sub-culture, just as "hacker" is, and that perhaps in that
subculture the definition is different.  However in the mass market, public
eye, a "hacker" is defined to be a low down criminal.