Growing up, the word “hacker” always meant a negative thing. A hacker was a troublemaker, an anti-social dweeb, and at the very worst, a hacker was a criminal. Looking at a very interesting documentary in class today, it appears I was far from alone in my conceptions on what makes a hacker. The stereotype comes from somewhere, but I found it very interesting that the original “hackers”, like Captain Crunch, were far from the maliciously criminal.
Something tells me I’ve got the wrong Captain Crunch…..
These “original hacker”, saw technology as an exploratory playground. It testing limits, it fostered innovation. Heck, it even provided a social interaction, for example, when like-minded “phone freaks” hosted conferences on the phone companies’ own internal lines. It wasn’t until became more familiar with the term “hacker” that things started to turn.
Hollywood movies are a fantastic entertainment medium, but tend to glorify things more then a little. The movie “Wargames” and “Hackers” of course, are standar. However, I find it interesting that now information and Communications technologies have become a more involved aspect in our social life, the hacker has taken a new turn.
“Live free or Die Hard” is a great example of the contemporary portrayal of the hacker. Two types of hackers are portrayed in teh film. Justin Long’s character, what we see as the “traditional hacker”: young, awkward, a little anti-social, and completely immersed in tech life. Then, we have the main antagonist: Timothy Olyphant’s character: Older, militaristic, government-trained, athletic and fanatic.
This portrayal may mark a shift in our perceptions. The hacker will be still be seen as dangerous, this I have no doubt. However, the personification of hackers will no longer be limited to the basement-dwelling, society-scorning losers. Perhaps the person who can inflict the most damage will be seemingly perfectly adjusted, social, tech-savvy (and possibly even, *gasp*, female) person who seems the least suspicious.
