0
0

[–] Mouse-Ball-Z ago 

So, kill yourself, because you just did?

0
0

[–] XSS1337 ago 

Johnny DropTabes would agreed

3
0

[–] auto_turret 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Yes. There needs to be another word for that. Techsploiters. Exploiters of a system who do not have intricate knowledge of it. It ain't hacking as I would understand it.

1
4

[–] Seventh_Jim 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Then you don't understand hacking. It's an ethos; it's about getting things other people built to do things outside the intended purpose. It's about cultivating a mindset.

ITS OKAY TO BE WHITE was hacking.

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The word has gotten used in so many different contexts that it even defies your otherwise adequate definition. What about "life" hackers or "bio" hackers. We can't assign any intentionality to life or biology. So in that painfully vague context, hacking is just getting around any sort of natural constraint with yet some other form of technology. So technology itself becomes a form of "hack".

The problem is one of usage. When we say "tech" as opposed to technology, it's obvious by the usage that we don't mean building a fire. It refers to computer technology. It's both useful and obvious enough to legitimize this usage. Nobody is actually confused when someone says "tech" that they might be referring to building stone archways.

It's similar to hacking. The usage dictates the meaning of the word. In the broadest sense, hacking seems to be defined as "finding a less costly or more efficient means to cause a particular system to perform a desired function, that is to circumvent normal constraints".

But this doesn't always connote malevolence. And yet, when 99.99% of people use the term hacking today, they are most definitely referring to malevolent actions, as in remotely accessing something they should not, or intentionally causing something to perform a purpose other that it's designed one. It's obvious that there is a sufficient categorical difference between the malevolent kind of hacking and the benign/neutral type of hacking that we do need different terms for them.

But there seems to be a deeper implication to hacking, namely that you are messing with the "interpretive" or "computative" aspects of the system itself in order to be doing hacking. I could get my body to lose weight by changing certain foods that I eat, or by using a pill that blocks certain nutrients. None of these would really be "biohacking". But if we could change the genetic code, or we took a drug that changed the behavior of cellular receptors - now we'd be hacking. So it isn't about changing the input into the system, hacking involves changing the computation itself, or surmounting some defense to access the internal code.

I don't think what these guys did to the Tesla was hacking. They just changed the input by "fooling" the car into seeing something that wasn't there. So are magic tricks "brain hacks"? Is an "I Spy" book a brain hack because it strains our systems of perception? I don't think so. If these guys had changed the source code to substitute an 8 where it read a '3' initially, that would be hacking. But they only caused the car to see the wrong number because they manipulated the sign itself.

But then again, tricking a system with bad input can cause you to gain access to things you otherwise wouldn't be able to. Sort of like hypnosis. So perhaps we MUST consider INTENTION in our definition of hacking. Tricking a car into going 85 still doesn't appear to be hacking to me. Now, if they'd done that in order to gain access to something in the car to steal it? Now it becomes hacking.

1
-1

[–] 22589165? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

No it wasn't

2
-2

[–] auto_turret 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

You're entitled to your opinion.

2
-2

[–] Tallest_Skil 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Please execute anyone who uses the word "hackers" in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that has to deal with technology.

Preferably by hacking them into pieces.