Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.2600, comp.misc
Subject: the myth of the computer hacker (2002)
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 20:24:27 -0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <a87o6xedu50.fsf@somewhere.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 20:42:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73bc28e5e9b55780aa914f2f2af497dd";
	logging-data="206446"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7CqEAuVqacLMCw2u9tlsOjDX35rXSpCk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vB8jX3i66OosZ+tlr29jDo5WtSU=
	sha1:cMlPQ56B1nRIYaPvyVlyvjvWiec=

                    The Myth of the Computer Hacker
                              Reid Skibell
                             New York, USA
         Information, Communication & Society 5:3 2002 336–356

(*) Abstract

The seriousness of computer hacking is not exaggerated, it is far worse
than that.  The computer hacker has attained the status of myth; society
associates all computer crime with a mythical perpetrator that bears no
resemblance to reality.  This paper will argue that in the early stages
of the myth the computer hacker was regarded as a highly skilled but
mentally disturbed youth who has an unhealthy association with
computers. The new reality of electronic commerce resulted in pressures
that culminated in the computer hacker becoming regarded as a dangerous
criminal. A thorough analysis of the statistics will demonstrate that
the majority of computer intruders are neither dangerous nor highly
skilled, and thus nothing like the mythical hacker.

Full paper:
http://130.18.86.27/faculty/warkentin/securitypapers/Merrill/Skibell2002_C&S5_3_HackerMyth.pdf

(*) My reading

There are typos in the paper, which would have been easily caught by a
spell checker.  Some typos are difficult to understand.  For instance,
it seems that ``soldier'' has been written at various places as
``solider.''  Same typo over and over?  It is written properly in at
least one place.

The author seems to use the name ``hacker'' without any mention to
computer specialists in the original sense of the word.  No mention of
Steven Levy's ``Hackers'' from 1984.

Considering the length of the paper, it is not quite worth it.