Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!think!whitney
From: whitney@think.COM (David Whitney)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Security
Message-ID: <7153@think.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Aug-87 09:51:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: think.7153
Posted: Sat Aug  1 09:51:42 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Aug-87 08:45:57 EDT
References: <1517@rti.UUCP> <4245@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: whitney@godot.think.com.UUCP (David Whitney)
Distribution: world
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 48

In article <4245@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <1517@rti.UUCP> rcb@rti.UUCP (Randy Buckland) writes:
>
><	2. How do you feel about hackers? (pick one)
><		a) Credit to the industry, freedom fighters, security testers?
><		b) Minor annoyance that can be handled with simple precautions
><		c) Major annoyance that takes a lot of time and effort to
><			control.
><		d) Serious problem, need strong laws, shoot the lot of them.
>
>How about "other - describe?" I don't think any of the answers is
>correct.
>
>And here's where I think you went really wrong.
>
><	hacker - Lets just stick to the definition of someone trying to break
><		into a system where they should not be.
>
>That's the definition in common use, as opposed to the meaning
>attached by the people who first applied the term to computer types.
>It seriously devaules the term, and "cracker" or something similar
>should be used instead. Like trademarks and ethnic stereotypes,
>allowing such misuse to pass eventually leads to it being accepted as
>normal and correct. So it should be corrected at every occurence.

Good. Now, define it as what?

I am a Hacker. I am not, however, someone who rudely invades a system and mucks
about. I am a Hacker in the sense of the original definition - one who likes to
program/design/use computers for the sheer fun of it. I have been a hacker
since 1980 or so. That's when I ported Star Trek from some old DEC to an
Apple ][plus. It took several weeks, but then, I was only 12.

Another discussion going on here is the matter of copy protection and whether
the absence of licensing aggreement would cause the industry to be hurt. I say
"No!" because there are Hackers who will uncontrollably continue to supply the
market with something to use. Remember that software in the public domain, and
stuff written around and before 1980 was all Hacker stuff. It just appeared one
day, and everybody used it.

Those guys who invade systems aren't hackers, they're vandals or tresspassers,
depending on what they do while using the system. Those guys who redistribute
copies of protected (or unprotected) software are pirates, not hackers.

David Whitney, MIT '90                     Still learning about my Apple //GS
{the known universe}!ihnp4!think!whitney   and all of its secrets. Any and all
whitney@think.com                          technical info appreciated.
DISCLAIMER: You didn't actually believe all that, did you?