Comments on: The Origin of “Hacker”

By: Forkbomb

Forkbomb — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:49:50 +0000

No, this has to be an April fools joke. There is no way this “author” can justifice the useage of the word hacker to describe, what we have come to know as, a computer hacker. Even if the word hacker was used FIRST, doesn’t mean it’s the CORRECT word.

*Thumbs down*
*Meh*
*-1*

/Forkbomb.

By: AsbestosPoet

AsbestosPoet — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:58:26 +0000

I was actually poking around for the etymology for the word just a while ago. Read this article, noticed it was rather old and continued on.

I found that the term does indeed originate from MIT. Apparently, in the early 60s there were two types of students: Tools and Hackers. It was presumed there was no middle ground.

The Tools would attend class regularly, get straight As and be in the library if there weren’t any classes. (I note here, with relish, that this term has entered pop-culture’s slang lexicon as a derogatory term).

Hackers, on the other hand, were Tools’ antithesis. They didn’t go to classes, didn’t get good marks, slept in all day. What set them above drop-outs was the fact that they had a hobby. Trains, construction, and also: computers.

BTW, you can’t cite a media as a source for etymology. A newspaper’s goal is to sell newspapers. To that end, they will always slant things, people, and groups in such a way that it is sensationalist. A white-hat hacker isn’t sensational. A black-hat cracker is. Add to the above mix, a general misunderstanding of word usage, and you’ve got a recipe to (incorrectly) use the word ‘hacker’ to describe a malicious cracker.

If I had a penny for every time the mass-media misinterpreted something, I’d be buying up a controlling share of Microsoft’s stock.

The source I will cite for the origin of the word: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/hacker.html

By: Murfreesboro Homes For Sale

Murfreesboro Homes For Sale — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:24:38 +0000

Awesome write up, I am always looking for computer facts from the pass, I really enjoyed the one where Bill Gates said 640K would be enough memory for anyone.

By: ultimoAdios

ultimoAdios — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:31:37 +0000

Wonderful reading!

By: Krimse

Krimse — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:55:10 +0000

a) Criminal activity is not and has never been a defining part of a “hack” or “hacker”. That doesn’t mean a hacker can’t commit computer related crimes. But that is not what defines him/her. This is also what the originator of the 1959 TMRC dictionary claims (TMRC jargon was largely “copied” into the early computer culture).

b) As the jargon-file says, phreaking was considered a “semi-respectable activity among hackers”: “At one time phreaking was a semi-respectable activity among hackers; there was a gentleman’s agreement that phreaking as an intellectual game and a form of exploration was OK, but serious theft of services was taboo.”

c) And besides: just because a professor at the institution uses the word in an interview, doesn’t mean he actually knows how the people belonging to the culture use the word (he even says “the so-called”, which hints that he is not conversant with the culture himself). Even though his use of the word is not contradictory to this [non-criminal] definition.

To sum up: media is WRONG when they use the word hacker to imply a computer criminal when they do this regardless of his/her skill, creativity and ingenuity. A computer criminal CAN be a hacker, but it IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A DEFINING ATTRIBUTE of a hacker. Most uses of “hacker” in media is plainly wrong, and so are your interpretation of your sources, in my opinion.

By: www.codingthewheel.com

www.codingthewheel.com — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:43:52 +0000

I think the evidence is quite in favor of hacking being a black-hat term from the get go. It’s a leap to say otherwise. The “hacker as hero” or “Robin Hood hacker” motif, while fun to think about, doesn’t have much basis in reality… I’d be interested to see a (legit) piece of evidence to that effect.

By: The Editor

The Editor — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:55:41 +0000

Thats kind of interesting, I guess people always find a way of exploiting things.

By: Aaron Bassett

Aaron Bassett — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:46:53 +0000

You dismiss his source but are fine to support your defense of the media by using the media as a source?
(I know it is produced by students but it is still a newspaper)

Also I don’t see why you are limiting it to the earliest computer reference, as far as I can see your quote above is not really about computers itself. Technology, yes – computers, no.
Agreed it does say they used a computer, but there actual target was the phone system (so today they would be called phreakers)

By: tickletux

tickletux — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:17:11 +0000

The secondary source of wikipedia doesn’t count as evidence, while you’re right term “hack” was used in a “positive” sense with regards to model railways, “hack” in the context of computers wasn’t. In the earliest days at TMRC it was used with regards to gain unauthorized access on MIT’s computer systems (although with less negative connotations then it has now). The modern geek “hacker” sense which is in common use now of an elite programmer didn’t come around until much later.

By: Pius Uzamere

Pius Uzamere — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:02:46 +0000

Actually, you’re the one who’s mistaken — history *does* support the benign view. As you note, the term hacker dates back even to the Tech Model Railroad Club. The term was generalized to include all sorts of neat but benign tomfoolery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_hack) including white hat phone phreaking. At MIT, there’s definitely always been a sense that hacking has a code of ethics and that people who do bad things under the guise of hacking aren’t hacking at all.

The Tech’s 1963 reference to malicious phreakers as hackers is the same as modern day references to crackers as hackers: a mistake.