"Hacking absolutely and positively started with exploiting security "holes" in telecommunications and shared computing environments. That's exactly what Steve Wozniak was doing when Steve Jobs met him."
Hacking absolutely did not start with exploiting security vulnerabilities in telecommunications equipment.
It is true that phone phreaking and the like have a long distinguished history in the technology community. See for instance almost any issue of the 2600 magazine [The Hacker Quarterly]. However, indicating that "hacking" as an activity is about exploiting security vulnerabilities misappropriates the term.
There has been much debate on the correct definition of the work "hacker." For instance a quick google of "define: hacker" gives both positive an negative definitions. In contrast RFC 1392 explicitly defines it in the postive:
hacker
A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the
internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in
particular. The term is often misused in a pejorative context,
where "cracker" would be the correct term. See also: cracker.
Thus, today discussion of the word hacker needs to be sensitive to both definitions. Your post is not. You reject a long history of positive definitions for a negative one.
Hacking absolutely did not start with exploiting security vulnerabilities in telecommunications equipment.
It is true that phone phreaking and the like have a long distinguished history in the technology community. See for instance almost any issue of the 2600 magazine [The Hacker Quarterly]. However, indicating that "hacking" as an activity is about exploiting security vulnerabilities misappropriates the term.
There has been much debate on the correct definition of the work "hacker." For instance a quick google of "define: hacker" gives both positive an negative definitions. In contrast RFC 1392 explicitly defines it in the postive:
The wikipedia page gives a nice overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computing)Thus, today discussion of the word hacker needs to be sensitive to both definitions. Your post is not. You reject a long history of positive definitions for a negative one.