Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon (Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany - Aaron Swartz)

xlene xlene at 404ed.org
Thu Jan 9 19:29:49 PST 2014


On 08/01/14 07:05, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 2014-01-08 04:51, rysiek wrote:
>> Neither does it fit 1. -- he did not break any kind of security systems,
>> cracked passwords, etc., he just put a laptop on a network that had 
>> access to
>> these documents and downloaded the documents. That's all.
>
> You are perhaps saying it frequently requires no skill, other than 
> fraud or burglary, to muck up someone else's network.  Indeed it does 
> not.
>
> Nonetheless, mucking up someone else's network by such simple means is 
> hacking in the first meaning of the word, hacking as an aggressive or 
> criminal act.
>
> Because hacking from a distance requires skill, particularly if a 
> network has some halfway competent defenses, the word "hack" has also 
> come to mean some impressively clever stuff done with computers, but 
> the original meaning was simply bad stuff done by computer - and, in 
> the early days of the internet, it was possible to do bad stuff by 
> computer with very little skill.
>
> And even today, it is possible to do bad stuff by computer with very 
> little skill if one physically accesses a network that is not intended 
> or expected to be accessed by outsiders.
im not so sure hacking ever meant simply doing bad stuff with a 
computer. (if you take your lexicon from the main stream media perhaps 
but its simply not true.) making stuff do things it was not intended to 
do would be much closer to the original and correct definition of the 
term "hacking"



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list