Talk:Black hat (computer security)

Developed by Others?

WTF? Do you know any developed and ready-to-use software for buiding bot-nets??? This is shit... So use of semi-automatic software, developed by others — often without understanding how the software itself works. Was deleted - this is about script-kiddies, and not Blackhat hackers...

Horrible

This is an awful article full of P.C. nonsense. It's full of ESR revisionist linguistics. It should define "Black Hat" and not get into the whole hacker/cracker controversy.

This article is completely

Agreed - I came here for a genuine need to find out what black hat was - there is no need to rehash the whole hacker/cracker debate, which is hardly relevant. Sort it out, clean it up - this entry should have no more than a couple of paragraphs. Now I understand why there is so much controversy surrounding wikipedia.. Davidwoody (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That debate ended up in here because earlier you were sent directly to this page when searching for the term "Cracker". Fortunately this mistake has now been corrected by someone, so I'm sure the confusion is all gone now. JoaCHIP (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern Definition

This seems to be a modern alternative definition of the term Cracker. An expression derived from the term "to crack", usually meaning the process of circumventing copy protection in software and games. Most pirate groups still call themselves "crackers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.61.214 (talk • contribs)

I agree. In the '80s the cracking scene was game swappers and protection-breakers, and it partially evolved into the demoscene: it was not about malicious "hacking" of networked computers. 86.131.101.243 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that people think that "hacker" means "black hat", while there are a good number of hackers who do not do anything maliciously, they mearly use their skills to test their own network. Hacking is getting something to do what it was not intended for, and this is not necessarily bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphinx1364 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps we should consider differentiating between the old and new connotations. To my knowledge, at least from about 1985 until 1991, cracking always meant circumventing copy protection. Hackers who followed the code (observe but don't tamper) were hackers. Hackers that didn't follow the code were... hackers that didn't follow the code. Phreakers were phreakers. Social Engineering was a tool possibly used by all the individuals, and very few of the individuals were just one or the other "profession." All this is to say that this perception of crackers=black hats/hackers=white hats I find quite unfamiliar. I am pretty sure, from the discussion here and from my own observations, that crackers being those that circumvent copy protection is a more accurate defintion. But at the very least it should be presented as an alternate defintion. If I remember (or if someone else wants to) I will try to dig up some Phrack archives that would lend credence to the proliferation of the copy-protection/cracking perception. Now time to go back to sleep....WDavis1911 11:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

uh this is an entry about "black-hats". Leave the cracker/hacker debates to the relevant pages and link to it from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwoody (talk • contribs) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Economically" motivated?

Whoever said blackhats are "economically" motivated, apparently hasn't taken a deep enough look into the blackhat culture.

Black Hat conference?

The History Began Since the Security Needed

Defining today's black hat has not been easy, because even in hacking there are few terms that can be simplified. There are two types of hackers--ethical and unethical. Ethical hackers work on tasks which are provided to him legally or under certain rules and regulations, and unethical hackers work on tasks that are illegal.

A black hat, who is also known as an unethical hacker, breaks the privacy of any individual, steals data and defaces information, which might includes vast data destruction, information stealing, privacy breaking, and online theft. There are a few like Takshak Hack of India, Silver Lords of Pakistan, and The Hack Boyz of Tabriez, who are defacing government sites of eachother's countries, as part of an 'online war'.

Common usage

Just curious but in common usage is the term black hat upper-cased, as in "Black Hat", or lowercased, as in "black hat". The article seems to use both. Hullee 08:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)≈

Brown hat and grey hat

I just wanted to mention that the definition of "brown hat" needs to be synced with what the grey hat article has to say. -- J44xm 22:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know anything about hacking etc etc. But if anyone get any big ideas, make it about brown hats.

WTF?

I don't think Security_cracking should redirect to a worthless page arguing about the merits of various names for the humans who perform it. 24.110.60.225 02:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, though I don't think this page is worthless. Fatalserpent 03:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Hat?

The article states that Black Hat "probably comes from the opposite of Red Hat Wizards." I'm sure that's inaccurate, as Black Hat is opposite White Hat, which most likely is coined from the mid 20th century westerns on TV (where 'good guys' wore white hats, criminals wore black). I'm going to change it to this, as I don't see how Red Hat applies here. Pandemic 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably a confusion of Red Hat Linux.... Mythmon 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric Corley & Craig Neidorf

I've gone ahead and redacted them from this Wikipedia article. They are both covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, and neither of them has any obvious criminal conviction in relation to computer crime. To the contrary, their involvement in computer hacking extends primarily to the publication of magazines and/or newsletters relating to this topic. This is a protected, non-criminal activity.

While Neidorf was charged at one point, his case was dismissed before going to trial.

Please discuss here prior to re-adding them to this entry.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

AGAINST - White/Grey/Black Hat are have defined and distinict meanings. Having them on seperate pages are very usefull for helping people understand the difference. I suggest having each "hat" page separate, each containing an link to Hacker (computer security) and the other two "hats". Hacker (computer security) should then be cleaned up - focus on the general definition of hacker, and not explain everything else. I think this is what User: Irisish Wonder is getting at as well. --Blaufish 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST - the two terms are seperate enough. --H2g2bob 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article substantially a duplicate of a Hacker (computer security) subhead, then? :)

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than merge this one with anything, I'd rather have it split in two separate articles: one for black hat hacking and the otehr for black hat SEO as it's liked from the SEO page and there's little on here about actual SEO aspect of the term - so maybe that neds to be separate and expanded? -- IrishWonder | _{Talk to me} 14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST - the solution should be to refine the Hacking page so that it more appropriately reflects the true definition of the term. --Anaraug 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST - semi different

AGAINST - It is important to distinguish between the different classes of hackers. Combining this with Hackers in general will only mean that less detail will go into specifics regarding each hacker class. Keeping the classes separated means more information regarding each of them. --DJ.Bri.T 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST for the same sentiments as DJ.Bri.T --Blondtraillite (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AGAINST - It's important that links to "hacker" or "cracker" can be distinguished as to show the meaning in context. Note: I was responsible for much of the work in seperating out the articles: hacker, hacker (computer security), black hat, Hacker definition controversy, and Hacker (disambiguation). It was a right mess when they were all covered in the same article. —Pengo 06:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Righto, but since we already have Hacker and Hacker (computer security) it seems silly to have three -- count 'em, 3 -- more pages of arbitrary hat distinction. It creates an artificial distinction where it's unclear whether one actually exists, and the concept of "hats" can be (and to some extent is) covered in the main articles. I'm not convinced the various hat variation pages would survive an AfD, for that matter. User:Adrian/zap2.js 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How is the distinction artificial? Please give examples. They're all quite distinct in their meanings, and sit at different levels of generalness. A black hat is a type of hacker (computer security), which is a type of hacker. — Pengo 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples? What of? In any event, they're unduly specific, and seek to create a needless distinction by alleging that people who do (x) are (y). The concept of hats gets quite enough attention in the main article. Having entirely independent articles for each is bizarre, when "hacker" and "cracker" would be far less confusing to the casual observer.

User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hacker" and "cracker" are both very vague and do not have clear meanings. See Hacker definition controversy and Hacker (disambiguation) for more details on "hacker", as well as the three conflicting definitions of "cracker" at Hacker (computer security) for why these terms are not appropriate. If you don't want to refer to hats, you can just refer to "Hacker (computer security)", but if you do, you can. I don't see the problem. I was asking for an example of an article where linking to an existing hacker/blackhat article would force you to make an "artificial distinction". Black hat hacking is the type most commonly referred to (outside of geek-circles), so why not have an article for it? The alternative to force people to read an essay on the meaning of "hacker" whenever they follow such a link. —Pengo 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this in about eight hours. You're too reasonable to back-and-forth with at 3AM :)

User:Adrian/zap2.js 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - It makes sense to merge it with Hacker(Computer_Security) since that topic is more biased on useing the term 'Hacker' to signify a person who breaks/enters a computer network. It uses the term Black Hat to signify a person who maliciously breaks into a network, inspite of the fact that a black hat's skills could range beyond that. I say either merge black hat into it (since it leads a person to think that black hats _only_ break into networks with malicious intent) or remove Hacker(Computer_Security) altogether. I'm leaning more toward removeing Hacker(C_S) since it needs some signifcant work before it can be of any value and black hat could simply be cleaned up to clarify black hats more accurately, but i don't think that will be happening anytime soon. Pandemic 15:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST - There should be a differentiation between the hackers and their acts, too easily mixed if on the same page. Also, only merging black hats and leaving white and grey hats on different pages would give a skewed view of the term. Anand 16:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST - This article is too specific to be merged. However, depending on the length of the other hat color articles, they might be candidates for merging. --SheeEttin 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST: We need to re-claim the term hacker. Hacker helps modify the software and should be a possitive term, while cracker as negative term

AGAINST Shinobu 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST Bhaskar Tiwari 2:33 AM 5/21/2006 (IST)

The term BLACK HAT has a philosophical aspect....Black HAt Hackers may be a computer term not BLACK HAT itself

it should remain aloof...

Bhaskar <ebhakt>

AGAINST You are talking about two different topics and trying to turn them into something that might be the same. There is no like in black hat and security.

Phrase origin

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the origins of the phrase 'black hat', something I've been interested in for a while. I had assumed it was a recent coinage, but then I was reading Thomas Hauser's biography of Muhammad Ali, where it talks about the assumption before the Sonny Liston fight that Liston was a 'black hat' and Ali a 'white hat'. Looking into it a little further, the OED (under the headword 'hat') says 'black hat (Australian slang): a newly arrived immigrant.' Does anyone else know anything about the history of this phrase, or how it came to be used in hackerdom? I've been meaning to look it up in the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Thanks, Mrgah 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"White hat" and "black hat" is intended to show one group as "good" as opposed to the other, being "evil" respectivly. This was coined from early American Televison westerns. Since the broadcast was black and white only, the evil character would wear a black cowboy hat and the good character a white one for easy distinction. Since then the use of "black and white hats" have been applied to various groups, probably none more than hacking though. Pandemic 14:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal Unsubstatiated Remark

I removed the following comment:

• Side note- the terms White Hat, Grey Hat, and Black Hat were taken from the Spy vs. Spy comic strips in Mad Magazine.

...largely because my understanding is that the classic TV explanation is more plausible than a specific sourcing to MAD, prevalent though the latter's influence may be on computer culture. The Black Hat/White Hat distinction is pretty well understood throughout US culture to mean "Bad Guy/Good Guy", and the "Grey" would follow naturally to anyone familiar with the phrase "grey area", espeically to any computer programmer who has had to deal with color-encoding. Abb3w 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the earliest I've been able to track (via Google's archive) use of "Black Hat" to refer to computer intruders is the 1997-05-28 announcement of the "Black Hat Briefings" for that July's DEF CON. Abb3w 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Hat

Why is Red Hat in the external links section? Does it have any relation to Black hat/White hat other than the linguistic similarity? Ojw 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It should probably not be there; I'll remove it. Shinobu 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

red hat is there because the original Hackers, neither really black or white hats, believe in open source. completely. --212.219.242.13 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but they were not really crackers but more coders. Even so, I still think the red hat link shouldn't be there. This is an encyclopedia, not a bad riddlebook. Shinobu 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources? (especially on people)

1. Justin Peterson — (also known as Agent Steal)
2. Jack D. Slater — (also known as D-Cypher) November 28, 2001, he used a simple archaic binary coding sequence called FAIRY. With it he accessed Enron's data storage and threatened to blackmail Chairman/CEO Kenneth Lay by means of cyber-terrorism. He was bought off by Lay for $50 million and disappeared. He foiled police capture by changing his name and is believed to constantly change names to evade arrest.

Hey folks,

Quick google search pulls up nothing on Jack D. Slater + Enron or D-Cypher + Enron. Can we get a source on this? And if we're going to list this Justin Peterson guy, we should have more info (quick search pulls up this: [1]). Actually, in general, we need references on all these people - I don't know about other Wikipedians but I have no idea about most of these people and don't know whether I can trust the listing of their names and offenses.

Janet13 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find sources, you can tag them with {{fact}}. If they stay unsources for more than, say, two months, axe them. Bye, Shinobu 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cracker

I agree that a cracker is either one who circumvents some protection, or otherwise brute forces some type of password file

Spamming

What is it with all these IP's spamming this article? Has anyone else noticed this? Most of the edits done to this artcicle (and the White hat page) is mostly vandalism reverts. -- Kerowren 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You could ask for semi-protection: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Not sure it it's quite bad enough for that or not yet. --h2g2bob 10:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is getting consistent. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Other meanings of "Black hat" and "White hat"

I provided some external links and was accused of spam even though they fell well within the guidelines. For some reason or another the current entry for 'Black hat' alludes only to crackers and hackers. There is another meaning for 'Black hat' in the context of search engine marketing. For example an exact search for "black hat seo" in Google provides 271,000 references. Compare this with an exact search for "black hat hacker" which provides only 33,700 references. There are similar examples for "white hat".

Why do you choose to completely exclude the more popular meaning of these two terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.146.38 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2006

The more popular term? SEO aspect of the black/white/grey hat issue is barely off the ground. Frankly, hardly anyone save SEO'ers know this category. Black, white and grey hatting has been around for years. Go into almost any computer related forum and irc channel and drop either and people will automatically think that you are referring to hacking. But I do agree that the term is emerging in SEO, however there isn't enough to write seperate articles about. Sections were given to it in the SEO article and a section also in the grey hat article. But the links that you continue to post are pure spam. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do visit lots of computer related forums and you are mistaken. Most of the black hat talk is about SEO. In the distant past you may have been correct in your assumption but things have moved on, even blackhatseo.com was registered over four years ago. You can carry on ignoring it, it's not my problem but please don't display your prejudice by incorrectly referring to the link I suggested as spam.

Update - The much improved entry for Search Engine Optimization has a better contextual link now to this page (Black Hat). However there is nothing on this page about black hat seo thanks to the removal of so called spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.146.38 (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

something to watch for

Some of the recent ip stuff on this page:

http://www.syndk8.net/forum/index.php/topic,10790.msg104248.html#msg104248

Geni 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

White Hat added See also

Seems I wasn't logged in when I added the White Hat link. Sorry.

Neil Smithline 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Hat conference

There is also an annual Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas. I think that article should mention it or refer it. Has anyone any information about that? Samohyl Jan 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Murdock Sentence

"Murdock will be released from prison in 2008, following a 5 year probationary period." Surely this should read "followed by"? MarkMLl 09:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I can't help but think the terms 'black hat' and 'white hat' must come from the Hollywood tradition (in the old cowboy movies) to have the bad guys wear black hats and the good guys white hats. I think this would be important to include if it can be verified. Neil --66.238.192.50 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be Spy v Spy, too. --- tqbf 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious Systemic and Cultural Bias Problem

This article is biased towards US University-educated IT-related people only and has no right to purport itself as representing world opinion or understanding on the notion of a "hacker". Please read the full explanation for Systemic and Cultural Bias with regard to hacking on the Hacker page. I have temporarily added the {{globalize/USA}} warning marker to warn non-IT related people, and non-native English speakers, of the dangers of interpreting this article in its current form.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. When you restore it, please provide specific things about the text that could be modified to make the tag unnecessary. --- tqbf 13:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, I should have been a little more specific so here we go. The current article is probably the best of all the hacker-related articles currently in existence as it does attempt to be neutral in its stance. However, being factually neutral and being presentationally neutral are very different, and the general presentation of this article is misleading, especially to non-English speakers. English is not the native language of a single nation; it is the native language of a considerable number of nations whose culture and word usage does not revolve around the US. Therefore, it is imperative that articles written in English:

1. never assume that all readers whose mother-tongue is English are of a single nation,
2. never assume that all readers whose mother-tongue is English understand everything about the culture and language of other English-speaking nations,
3. never assume that all readers whose mother-tongue is not English, but who understand English, learnt English in America or within an American cultural context,
4. never assume that all foreign people understand the cultural nuances between the different English-speaking nations as people of those English-speaking nations do.

Point (1) ensures that the English used in articles is neutral (e.g. not just purely American English), or correctly documented where use of regional dialect is impossible to avoid. This ensures all English-speaking people understand the content. Point (2) ensures that articles written by (for example) US citizens don't misrepresent to other US citizens that the rest of the world is identical to America in it's use of the terms or notions being described. Point (3) ensures that foreign people who learnt English in a country that is not based on US culture or American English (e.g. those people who learnt English the within The British Empire or the British Commonwealth) understand the article without heavy additional investigation. Finally, Point (4), the most important, ensures that articles culturally anchored in the English-speaking world retain their factual and presentational correctness when translated by a foreign citizen into their native tongue; even when the translator does not understand, or has never experienced first hand, the notions the article is describing.

An excellent example of point (1) is the fact that British people can't even do a simple thing like use a US public pay telephone, because the UK has no concept of a "long distance" call. UK people don't know that different carriers own different payphones, let alone the fact this affects who you can call and at what rate. Therefore, as even native English speakers don't understand each other, these things must to be explained to everybody, especially foreign people who don't know English culture except through that which they read on Wikipedia. English speakers on Wikipedia have a duty to be culturally and linguistically impartial with regard to English usage so as not to deliberately mislead or misinform other nations of the world.

Given I hope you now understand the background, here are my comments on the current article.

1. "Hacking", the word, is not a pejorative, or any other phrase that has been coined to give hackers a bad reputation. It is enshrined in law (including US law) as a crime, and even the US Department of Justice uses the phrase as normal vernacular in their offical case summaries and press releases. Therefore, to imply that any other usage of the word is accepted general usage outside of US IT-related academia (without also plainly stating the current facts) is tantamount to lying.
2. Given (1), "Black Hat", "White Hat" and any other term that attempts to distinguish good hackers from bad ones has absolutely no validity within a context (e.g. a country) where the word "hacker" has only one understood meaning: criminal (UK: Oxford University Press). Being able to put different names on the different meanings of the word "hacker" is only valid where the meaning of the word "hacker" is generally understood to have more than one meaning. That context is currently limited to the just the United States.
3. Given (2), "Black Hat" and other associated terms are Neologisms. That is, this page is attempting to define a new word or phrase, as opposed to documenting a globally understood notion or definition, and therefore consitutes original research which is currently forbidden under current Wikipedia policy. The reason this can be said is because there is no evidence to support the fact that a "Black Hat" is a currently understood definition outside of the United States, logical as it is based on the US English definition of the word "hacker" in the first place (US: Merriam Webster).

My current recommendations for how these problems can be fixed are as follows:

1. In the title or opening paragraph there should be a simple, clear, and unambiguous statement that "Black Hat" is common vernacular within the IT industry within the United States only.
2. Every reference to the word "hacker", "hacking", etc. must be changed so that it is clear that the American meaning of the word is being used, as a person who does not speak or understand American English will be confused and diliberately misled. Purely using footnotes is not acceptable as footnotes are sometimes read out of order and more frequently just ignored. The first mention, if not all mentions, of the word "hacker" must have an explicit inline explanation. E.g. the opening line in the Terminology section would read "Use of the term 'hacker' within United States Academia is mostly limited to...". Usage of the word outside the US is not "limited" as outside the US there is only one interpretation, so to suggest otherwise is absolutely incorrect and shows a lack of respect for English usage in other English-speaking countries.
3. Every non-definition reference to the word "hacker" must have it's quotation marks removed as this implies that there is no globally understood meaning. There is a globally understood meaning and so the word should be used normally without quotation marks. This will help foreign people know that the English-speaking world currently uses the word "hacker" in it's criminal sense.
4. Explanation of US IT-only understood terms, or opinions on the like, should always be accompanied (if not preceded) by a balancing statement to the effect of documenting current term usage. E.g. "Until the 1980s, all people with a high level of skills at computing were known as hackers until some of these hackers started to use their skills to commit crimes. Many more hackers were inspired by the fame that the early hackers earned (ref: Engressia, Draper, Mitnick, etc.) resulting in criminals making up the vast majority of hackers to this day. This resulted in laws against hackers being created in many countries."
5. The word "enthusiast" in English in terms of its usage and its generally understood notion is that it is used to describe good people, or people who do good deeds (c.f. similar meaning words: Roget's Thesaurus). Terrorists may enthuse about their actions, but they are not known as "enthusiasts", they are known as fanatics, fundamentalists, or zealots. Serial criminals may enthuse about their crimes, however they are not known as "enthusiastic", they are known as calculating, expedient and even Machiavellian. Hackers may enthuse about their work, however they often commit crimes and so "enthusastic" cannot, and should not, be used to describe the activities of a hacker where the global notions of the words "hacker" and "enthusastic" are to be understood. As references to the word "enthusiast" are deliberately ambiguous (and therefore possibly misleading to a non-native English speaker), they should be removed in accordance with Imperative 4.

These changes are time-consuming, I admit, but they must be done. They will improve the article substantially so that it properly documents current usage and does not attempt to define new usage (Wikipedia policy: OK), is understood by all English speakers (Imperatives 1 & 2), correctly informs everybody, especially foreign people, as to the correct cultural scope of usage (Imperative 3), and is clear and unambiguous which aids translators in producing accurate translations that document and don't misinform other nations (Imperative 4).

Andrew81446 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your crusade and spamming. The articles won't be changed in the way you want, not only because you are advocating POV, but also because you are factually wrong on most points. And, as I already said, please keep your comments short if you want people to actually read them. --rtc (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What I see is that someone has replied to a request for reasoning in a polite and good faith manner and you have given them a complete lack of respect in return. Someone has seen that the article needs improving and has seen a way that it could be improved (by adding the tag); I think the tag should be left. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey now! On this page, it was my request, and I didn't snap at him. There are things I agree with and things I don't agree with here; certainly, it will be reasonable to remove the tag long before we resolve the decades-old debate about "cracker" vs. "hacker". 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs)

Hi, sorry, I did change that after about 30 seconds; I didn't take you to be the same editor :), I'd just written it wrong. It really annoys me when people bite new editors though. This new user (Andrew) obviously wants to help make a change and they should be welcomed otherwise they'll feel no reason why they should give up their time to volunteer at a place where they get crap thrown at them. It wouldn't happen in real life...then again... Seraphim ^Whipp 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue has already been discussed at length at Talk:Hacker#Systemic_and_Cultural_bias_has_de-railed_this_article. --rtc (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Talk:Hacker/Archive2#Systemic_and_Cultural_bias_has_de-railed_this_article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cracker Redirect

I am changing the redierct for Cracker (computing). This article does not mention the subject of cracking, or the people who do so. Also, it apears that this was removed in a previous edit. With no reason to keep it, I will move it to Software cracking. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples

There are two examples listed - "Marcelo" and "Leonardo", both of which link to Disambiguation pages where I can find no notable "black hat villains" listed. Does anybody know who - specifically - these two names refer to, and if so can you update the links to go to the actual pages of these people/characters? And if not, perhaps these should be removed, since in their current state they don't add anything useful to the article. Damage (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I just discovered the article Black hat (film): it seems an unnecessary disambiguation, as the film trope is arguably the primary meaning of the term, and is what this article is about. I suggest that article be merged into this one. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

go for it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Against There are the "good guys" and "bad guys" in hacking; it needs to to be differentiated, like in the merge discussion above. As well, just like words that have the same root, in the evolution of the term new meaning is ascribed. "Black Hat" in film is about the use of stereotypes in order to establish immediate sympathy or antagonism for the character and writers may go against type in order to establish a certain feel or change in build for the film. "Black Hat" in hacking describes the philosophy/intentions of the person and will not be used to mean the opposite. As the "Black Hat" can never mean the opposite in hacking (only used ironically), it has a different meaning.

I think if this article were expanded, including describing more of the determinants or listing well-known "Black Hats" in the hacking world (perhaps from court cases), the differentiation will be established and interest in merging the two should be lost.--Blondtraillite (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)