On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Sholes, Joshua <joshua_sho...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > On 3/13/14, 7:35 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <larryshel...@cox.net> wrote: > >>Not sure I can agree with that. I have been in this game for a very >>long time, but for most of it in places where the world's population >>cleaved neatly into two parts: "Authorized Users" who could be >>identified by the facts that they had ID cards, Badges, and knew the >>door code; and "trespassers" who were all others. >> >>Then you new kids came along and (pointlessly, in my opinion) divided >>the later group into the two described above. > > See, the way *I* learned it was that part of the creed of the "hacker" > involved "why would I want to play with your systems, mine are much > cooler."; that is, by definition a "hacker" is in the first group. >
The point is that 'computer security' involves innovation as much as is done at hacker spaces (which can be geared to hardware or computer security or whatever). I think the difference you're trying to argue is the legality and not the task or process. I think calling the illegal form of the study of computer security "cracking", the legal form "hacking" and people who are "cracking" who don't know what they're doing "script kiddies" is irrelevant, useless, and causes useless debates (that I started) like this.
