From: lists_full-disclosure at darkuncle.net (Scott Francis)
Subject: Shiver me timbers.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 12:24:25PM -0700, tupac.shakur@...hmail.com said:
> 
> > Real hackers today are doing exactly the same thing they've been doing for =
> > the
> > last 40+ years - hacking. Creating. Exploring and learning. Sometimes the
> > only way to learn about something is to break it, or break into it. The
> > latter was true in older days, when a lot of systems were inaccessible to t=
> > he
> > average joe. It's getting less and less true as time goes by and computer
> > systems and networks become more ubiquitious and affordable.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have set yourself up by providing a schema for fallacy.
> If one does exactly the same thing then it is not creative, its consistant.

Not true. If we hacking by definition _is_ being creative, then if I'm
hacking today in the same sense of the word as somebody hacking on a PDP-11
back in the day, I'm still being creative. I was talking about definitions of
terms, not about literal examples. I was saying that hacking == being
creative.

> Lets assume for the moment that hacking evolves and thus changes and is
> not the same reiteration or knowledge deriving only from previous knowledge
> but are addition premise added to that which is hacking. Creativity. Do
> you agree?

Certainly, the scope of knowledge evolves and grows. Definitions do not
necessarily change. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. Basic words in
common use often carry much the same meaning now that they did centuries ago.
Some things, as another poster noted in an earlier mail, change fairly
frequently. What I was driving at is that I prefer to have the terms 'hacker'
and 'hacking' retain their original meaning, while inventing _new_ terms to
fit the concepts that are nowadays being associated with 'hacker' and
'hacking'. I think that the original concept of a hacker is a great one, and
should not be lost just because a new breed has emerged - language can
evolve to encompass both concepts without obliterating one of them.

Or I could just say "old school hacker" or "hacker in the traditional sense".
*sigh*

> > Real hackers are out there hacking. Not talking trash on IRC all day long,
> > pretending they're gangstas from the ghetto and trying to break into each
> > others' systems. Hackers are hacking, not wasting their time sitting around
> > doing nothing. "But I'm a hacker!", someone will undoubtedly protest. "I
> > break into systems - hacking is only about breaking into systems and/or
> > causing damage!" Maybe in your lexicon. Real hackers are creating things -
> > have you created anything lately? If the answer is no, you should try it.
> 
> Pretending to be a gangsta from the ghetto is orthagonal to the entire
> statement about hacking. Its needless banter that does not dismiss the
> possibility for one to become a hacker if one decides for some reason
> of pleasure to irc and/or pretend to be a gangsta from the ghetto. Secondly,

True, hackers could very well decide to talk gangsta and adopt the ghetto
lexicon. I was making an overly general (possibly stereotypical) statement.
You're right, it didn't have much to do with the original statement. I still
think it holds true though - most of those out there idling on IRC, trying to
act like gangstas and adopting ghetto slang are about as far from true
hackers as they are from true gangstas. *shrug*

> your statement 'maybe in your lexicon' sets yourself up to subjective
> perspective, and if in fact you subscribe to subjectivism in definition

Language is subjective. It's an agreement on definitions in order to foster
communication.

> then it would be futile for you to actually continue you your argument
> solely on premises of semantics within a localized context.  Do you retract
> any ideas that you have for subjectivism to enter an objective argument?

If there is such a thing as an objective argument about language and evolving
lexical definitions, I'm all ears.

> It's really your call at this point because you made the statement.
> Lastly, if real hackers create something in the middle of the forest,
> and no one sees it, is it up to those whom are not notified of its existance
> or possibly too jaded to see the artistic beauty of a creative work
> simply because they dont see it to be the judge of what is creation?

What exists, exists. Reality, as opposed to language, is objective, not
subjective.

> If you agree that creation can occur and YOU yourself are not an empirical
> judicator of what is creativity, then all one must simply answer to your
> question is YES and you cannot logically argue otherwise. ARE YOU a judge
> of creation?

This is a nonsensical argument. See what I mentioned above about objective
reality. If something exists, it exists. If it's created, it exists and is
created. I suppose the answer you were digging for is, "If I create
something, it exists whether or not anybody else agrees with me." Unless of
course you are debating the meaning of these terms.

> > that post. But you're not too likely to find real hackers (as in our
> > predecessors from MIT, and in later days, the crews like l0pht and cDc)
> > idling all day long on IRC or threatening death and destruction. And the
> > real blackhats, on the other hand, are out there stealing information,
> > breaking into banks and governmental networks, working for organized crime
> > and corporate espionage sections - you won't find them hanging out on IRC
> > bragging about channel takeovers and the like, either.
> 
> It is funny that now you mention cDc and l0pht infering that they are real
> hackers.  It has been witnessed by many folks that some members have

It was the first example that came to mind. It was not intended to be
complete, authoritative or accurate for every member of said groups.
Remember, I was talking about the general spirit and meaning of things,
rather than specific examples and incidents.

> been known to pretend to be gangstas from the ghetto on or off of irc, just
> as a side note to let you know, and theres nothing wrong with that.

True.

> Its also funny that you consistantly make statements about where you will
> or wont find hackers, and what you cannot do to be a hacker. Such strict

I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that real hackers (in the
Jargon File sense of the word) are unlikely to be found idling on IRC all day
long, talking trash, taking over each others' systems and pretending to be
from the streets of {Compton, the ghetto, LBC, etc.}. It was a general
statement. There are of course exceptions to nearly everything, and certainly
there are some excellent hackers out there (in both senses of the word) who
may choose to adopt such a persona.

As you noted, the persona one adopts has little to do with their status as a
hacker. As a general trend, one is more likely to find script kiddies than
true hackers on, say, #phrack (no offense to #phrack, I know there are
skilled individuals in there, this was just an example).

> rules on what defines sometimes entails there is no room for creativity
> to expand the premises on which hacking is based. You cannot be a hacker
> because you act like a ghetto gangster and up until now hackers did not
> do this; you created therefore you are not a hacker.

I did not say that. You are extrapolating from comments I made and forming a
conclusion I did not.

> > Have you by chance read Tad Williams' series "Otherland"? If you liked "Snow
> > Crash" or Gibson, you should _definitely_ read it. Book one is called "City
> > of Golden Shadow". All I can say is, I'm pretty sure construction efforts on
> > the pre-alpha versions of what will eventually become the 'Metaverse' are
> > already underway. I just hope that hackers will be able to keep it free and
> > open, as they did with the Internet (another government-funded project). As
> > for jacking into it, well ... you might be interested in the cover story fr=
> > om
> 
> I agree. I encourage people to read.

Agreed; one of the single best things a person (hacker or otherwise) can do.
Read, and read a lot. Don't limit yourself to technical manuals; the more you
read, the more you exercise your mind. Much of the sum of human knowledge is
available in readable form; we need only avail ourselves of it.

-- 
-= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =-
  GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527
        illum oportet crescere me autem minui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20020820/dd5e9ecc/attachment.bin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists