How to catch a cracker in the US?

Thu Mar 13 19:15:13 UTC 2014

On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:46 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, James R Cutler
> <james.cutler at consultant.com> wrote:
>> And Bill documents yet another redefinition.  Prior to that time, at MIT a "hacker" produced a novel variation of technology using it in ways not previously envisioned but not necessarily unlawful.
>> 
>> Mating two different generations of telephone keysets or reducing a complex rack mount filter to a single small circuit board with an FET or two are just a couple of examples.  One was just a "hack", the other an "elegant hack".  We just called
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time "hacker" emerged as a word
> distinct from "hack" it already carried implications of mischief and
> disregard for the rules in addition to the original implication of
> creatively solving a technical challenge. Is that mistaken?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

Bill,

Mistaken? Yes.

As of early 1960’s - See history of WTBS, Ralph Zaorski, Dick Gruen, Alan Kent, and many others - The then current usage of “hacker” was simply one who produced a “hack” - an unusual or unexpected design or configuration or action which either did the same old thing done more simply/elegantly or which did something new or unexpected altogether.  Putting an Western Electric power plant on an Automatic Electric step-by-step for the East Campus telephone switch was one of my “hacks”.

James R. Cutler - james.cutler at consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140313/4b35dc82/attachment.sig>