data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7ef11/7ef11499cd62f1c60ede1ee96549710be3eb6ccb" alt=""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Just saw part I of a two-part series on "hackers" being broadcast by a local San Francisco TV station. Nothing horrible, in my opinion. The adroitly sidestepped the hacker/cracker distinction by saying the "hacker" has come to mean..." and then gave the negative, intrusive definition. The interviewed a spokesman for "InsWeb" an on-line insurance company that has been the target of "hackers." During the filmed segment, they did a trace-route on the intrusion which lead back to Germany. The explained "social engineering" and showed how a hacker could get someone to reveal their password. They also interviewed a San Jose computer crime cop named Keith Lowery. He didn't add much to the discussion. At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers--know the difference between right and wrong." Tomorrow's show should be more interesting (and possibly much more sensationalistic). Part II is "The Hacker Underground." Oooh, scary! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~