Comment Good grief.... (Score 1) 205
Looks like I missed most of this discussion - but here goes anyway:
1) Confusion between "hackers" and "crackers". Ya know, this really reminds me of Edwin Newman-esqe statements about "proper" language which ignore common usage. Wake up, folks. This is no different from any other case where words understood by a small community of people to have a very specific meaning (for example, "evolution", "acceleration", etc) pass into common usage - the meaning gets distorted. If a large population of people use a word a certain way, and they all understand what they intend it to mean, then that (distorted) meaning _is_ a legitimate definition of the word by any sane standard. Or, to put it another way; this hacker vs cracker argument has been going on for years. If most people's minds haven't been changed by now, it just ain't gonna happen.
2) "Hackers don't intend any mischief when they break in, they just wanna look around." Really? How do I know what the intentions are of a hacker who breaks in? And even if I do establish that the intentions were benign (realistically, I'll never know for sure), real damage has still occurred; work time has been wasted chasing the threat (reduces profit, makes company less healthy; jeopardizes stockholders, creditors, and employees), the hacker may have seen things which are none of his business (jeopardizes client confidentiality agreements) - not to mention that the hacker may have accidentally deleted files, etc, without realizing it. There simply is _no_ such thing as a "harmless" intrusion.
3) "Hackers share". Hackers violate copyright laws and licensing agreements. This is strong language, but when you copy licensed software and give it to someone else, or accept such software, you are depriving the software company of its rightful revenue. In other words, you are committing _theft_. Pure and simple.
I enjoy my work, but I run my company in order to put food on my table and pay my rent. You hack into my site, you _will_ be prosecuted. No exceptions.
1) Confusion between "hackers" and "crackers". Ya know, this really reminds me of Edwin Newman-esqe statements about "proper" language which ignore common usage. Wake up, folks. This is no different from any other case where words understood by a small community of people to have a very specific meaning (for example, "evolution", "acceleration", etc) pass into common usage - the meaning gets distorted. If a large population of people use a word a certain way, and they all understand what they intend it to mean, then that (distorted) meaning _is_ a legitimate definition of the word by any sane standard. Or, to put it another way; this hacker vs cracker argument has been going on for years. If most people's minds haven't been changed by now, it just ain't gonna happen.
2) "Hackers don't intend any mischief when they break in, they just wanna look around." Really? How do I know what the intentions are of a hacker who breaks in? And even if I do establish that the intentions were benign (realistically, I'll never know for sure), real damage has still occurred; work time has been wasted chasing the threat (reduces profit, makes company less healthy; jeopardizes stockholders, creditors, and employees), the hacker may have seen things which are none of his business (jeopardizes client confidentiality agreements) - not to mention that the hacker may have accidentally deleted files, etc, without realizing it. There simply is _no_ such thing as a "harmless" intrusion.
3) "Hackers share". Hackers violate copyright laws and licensing agreements. This is strong language, but when you copy licensed software and give it to someone else, or accept such software, you are depriving the software company of its rightful revenue. In other words, you are committing _theft_. Pure and simple.
I enjoy my work, but I run my company in order to put food on my table and pay my rent. You hack into my site, you _will_ be prosecuted. No exceptions.
