From: pjn@nworks.com
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 23:56:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: cypherpunks vs hacker
Message-ID: <TCPSMTP.16.7.29.6.6.26.2645935021.657071@.nworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 >  It is interesting to note that while both groups have opposite
 >  objectives (Hackers want all information free, where cypherpunks want
 >  everbody to be able to have privacy), and yet in there own ways, they
 >  are both right.

 In> I don't entirely agree with this.  I think both groups want
 In> information to be free, but also want people to be able to have
 In> privacy.  Most hackers (used in the sense of people who break into
 In> computers) attack computers owned by such companies as TRW and the
 In> phone companies.  Both of these systems have little regard for privacy.
 In> Most non-malicious hackers promote system security, but at the same
 In> time, don't like government-controlled monopolies and agencies to be
 In> able to keep secret information that should be free.  A very
 In> interesting paper by Dorothy Denning (she used to be regarded very
 In> highly by the hacker community before she started to support Clipper)
 In> expresses some of the concerns and morals of hackers.  It's called
 In> "Concerning Hackers Who Break Into Computer Systems" and is in Phrack
 In> issue 32. 
 > 
 I have read the file (I have all Phracks from the beginning.  Crypt is
 good too, but they dont have the same level of information as Phrack) 
 and I though that it was very inciteful (sp).


 >  I think what we need to define is the diffrence between hackers and
 >  crackers. A hacker breaks into a computer like a cracker (but the 
 >  similarities end there).  The hacker just want to look and learn, 
 >  possably "map out" the system just to see how everything works with
 >  everything else.  Crackers break into computers for the sake of 
 >  destroying or stealing information or the system itself.

 In> That's debatable.  I think many people incorrectly consider these
 In> terms to be mutually exclusive.  There are many hackers (used in the
 In> sense defined in the Jargon File) who also break into systems and could
 In> therefore be considered crackers also.  Most hackers definitely have
 In> the knowledge to break into computer systems, but many crackers aren't
 In> very well versed in programming and learn how to break into computers
 In> by using canned programs and G-files. 
 
 I am saying that hackers do break into computers, but crackers are more
 malicious in their intent.  And yes, pathetic hackers rely on programs.
 I have respect for hackers who do all the work themselfs.
 
 > 
 >  Both cypherpunks and hackers think that the government is wrong
 >  in many things that they do.

 In> Agreed.


  P.J.
  pjn@nworks.com



... Sorry, the dog ate my Blue Wave packet.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]