[snip]
>
> > > The hackers we're hearing about more and more in the news are immature, true. But I'd like to dispute the idea that these people are "supersmart geniuses" with skills far beyond the average user. In fact they are often stupid, amazingly clumsy in technique, and they get CAUGHT. Their immaturity is a reflection of their average age group getting younger and younger... I understand there have been groups of 10 and 12 year olds -- dumb enough to work from school computers -- who've brought down major gateways. And how do they do it? It's pretty brainless: they download ready-made backdoor software, scanners, and other icebreaking tools that require little skill to use, and they start hacking away clumsily...
> > >
> > > Once, there were near-legendary myths of some "hero hackers" who worked in the early days of the Internet. These folks, all Unix gurus, had a reputation for social activism such as (for example) breaking into the salary accounts of a major corporation... then emailing everyone to show wage disparity between male and female employees doing the same job... before covering up their tracks and disappearing without a trace. They *were* breaking the law to make their point, but they weren't stupid. Today's hackers, though, are the lamers who fancy themselves "The €l33t d00dz 2B FEARED," who can only show their "power" through wanton destruction and by inconveniencing thousands of users. It's particularly sad when the hackers are children. The thrill of breaking into a network across cyberspace seems pointedly detached from them... like a sort of digital abstraction... and their very immaturity does not allow them to see their acts as crimes.
> >
> > In your description of the legendary hackers, you've left out one important detail - not only were they smart and good, they had a *purpose.* There was a reason that they were doing what they were doing, and they had something they hoped to accomplish. Today's lot of 733t ahck3r d00dz just don't.
>
> I'll concede to the "argument" that these people probably don't have IQs that number in the thousands or anything, but I still believe it's not quite as easy as downloading some pre-written software and running it.
>
> At any rate, it didn't take very long at all for the idea of what happened to Yahoo to catch on, based on what I found this morning.
>
> At least the sites at risk will have to do something about the possibility of becoming part of the list now.
>
> Mage"Not really sure that's a silver lining"Lord

Thing is, if people go around saying "Hey, I'm a ahcker, aren't I kewl!" they're lying... And those scanners, trojans, 'nukes' and other gubbins are simple to use (I've seen a few), especially the ones for ICQ, maybe we should be asking ourselves who wrote these programs...?


Monu..........*has an ahcking cough*