[random_guy]

Please, clueless journalists, stop using "hacker" as a synonym for "cracker". And also: when posting an article on HN which title contains the word "hacker" it would be nice if you put quotes around it if it's not intended as it should, like:

Steven Levy On The Hacker Spirit (no quotes, hacker is used correctly)

No "Hacker" Left Behind (quotes because hacker is intended as cracker)

[tptacek]

Thank you for this comment. Now, instead of wasting our time considering the article, in which the founder of the SANS Institute is lobbying the government to set up semi-official capture-the-flag contests (which he'll presumably get paid for), we can engage in the much more purely intellectual debate of whether people are using one word the way we want them to.

[random_guy]

Thank you for this comment. Now, instead of wasting our time considering the article, in which the founder of the SANS Institute is lobbying the government to set up semi-official capture-the-flag contests (which he'll presumably get paid for) which I couldn't care a flying f*ck about and I had to read until half before realizing that.

[gruseom]

I'm all in favor of our version of "hacker", but is the word "cracker" really used? Does anyone self-identify as a "cracker"? (I don't move in those circles.) Or is it just an artificial concoction, presumably trying to wrest the word "hacker" away from that meaning?

(Also, the earliest recorded use of "hacker", unfortunately for our cause, did refer to breaking into a system, so this ambiguity is not just a big misunderstanding.)

[jackfoxy]

It's common for words to get assigned different definitions even within a general topic. It doesn't do any good to cry "foul", unless you are in editorial control of some very influential content outlet. For instance sometimes journalistic associations or the government will issue decrees on usage of controversial words.

I don't think the NY Times or the US government is going to follow your suggested guideline anytime soon. Do a "define: hacker" lookup in Google, and you will see the article uses the term "hacker" correctly according to today's parlance. And the same author and publication could also use "hacker" in terms of your preferred definition in an article on a different subject and still be widely understood.

[random_guy]

I couldn't care less about changing what hacker means to the general public. I'd just like to be able to recognize if a topic is about either hacking or security at first glance.

[bootload]

"... when posting an article on HN which title contains the word "hacker" it would be nice if you put quotes around it if it's not intended as it should, like: ..."

True, but I try to keep the original headings. Changing them often causes confusion (editorialising) if I misplace emphasis. Besides I'm pretty sure most here know the distinction b/w "hackers" & "crackers".

[random_guy]

Changing them often causes confusion (editorialising) if I misplace emphasis

You're right.

Besides I'm pretty sure most here know the distinction b/w "hackers" & "crackers".

I think that's not the problem: what annoys me is that, as it was for this article, I am expecting something very different from what I find. It took me 1/3 of the article to understand they were not talking about hackers at all. Yes, stupid me, but that's what happened :)

[eli]

Guy, you lost this fight before most HNers were born.

[mjgoins]

The worst part is that the mainstream media really does know what they're doing in this case. They're not idiots. They're being manipulative.

[smokinn]

The mainstream media will never use the word "cracker". It's much too racially loaded.