> On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, thompson jeffrey w wrote:
> > Certainly, you do not think that hackers are the largest threat? I would
> > venture to say the only reason that they are dubbed such is because of the
> > media's portrayal of them. I would class the media as a large threat
> > to the internet only because they spread so much dis-information about it
> > to the public.
> > However, I would have to say that the biggest threat to
> > the internet now comes from the people who are setting the standards. If
> > standards are introduced with special interests in mind (i.e. clipper chip,
> > ITAR restrictions on encryption, CDA, etc, etc) then the state of the internet
> > stands to be radically changed. Mistakes in policies can and has caused
> > people on the internet to fight back.
> I guess I should have qualified that I was refering to security
> threats, not threats in general. I would assume that you are refering to
> a threat to the freedom of the Internet?
Loss of freedom on the internet is certainly one form of threat. Another
security type threat would be the medias hype about satan which seems
to have instilled the idea that it is the end all to security to quite
a number of administrators. This is of course, untrue.
I would also say that from my experience I have come to believe that
the hacker population in general is very little threat to the security or
well being of the internet or any networks for that matter. However,
there are some individuals who happen to be hackers who are threats to
security. These are very dedicated individuals and do not make up a very
large portion of what people call "hackers".
> > > Not only will the hacker portrayal depend on what form of media you
> > > are referring to, but also the particular hacker. Hackers that don't
> > > cause any apparent destruction and are able to crack the security of major
> > > corporations typically are looked upon more fondly than those who are
> > > malicious. It also depends on what the hacker was trying to do, i.e.
> > > steal lists of credit cards or break into the DoD's network to search for
> > > information on "black" agencies.
> > I disagree with this statement. I have only seen the media portray
> > people as hackers when they were doing something deemed "bad". However,
> > anytime someone was doing something "good" or "helpful" according to the
> > media, they were dubbed computer whizzes, or security experts. I know
> > for a fact, that several people termed this, were very renowned "hackers".
> Well, what is wrong with that if they were indeed doing something
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone doing something good. If
some does something bad, then they have done something bad. If they do good,
then they have done something good. The only point that I was trying
to make is that I have never seen the media call someone a hacker when
they have done something good, which increases the negative perception of
hackers in general.
> > The media in general.. They've glamorized scriptor hackers....
> > And in actuallity whether you are a hacker or not depends on which day
> > of the week it is.
> Weren't members of the Church of Scientology working with "hackers"
> as the media reported to fake mail cancel messages on newgroups? :)
I am not certain of this. (I really didn't follow much of the scientology
happenings) What I was getting at here, is that one day the very same
activities would be called hacking and the other it would be security
expert at work. It all depends on who your employed by, the current weather,
what you look like, college degree, and the barometric pressure.