Hackers

I am going to be honest; before I read the reading by Douglas Thomas I had the same preconception of ‘hackers’ that he describes many to hold – criminals who hack to destroy and make financial gains of some kind.

Thomas describes how the popular image of hackers as ‘criminals’ is mainly spread by the media, and that this is because the stories most frequently reported involve “damage or financial gain”. This is one side about the media and news organizations that bugs me, they only report things that are “newsworthy” and only report the dramatic side of the story – such as hackers partaking in criminal activities. Last week on Nightline there was a story about “why it’s powerful men who always cheat on their wives”, but this is the same thing happening! It only SEEMS like they are the majority because it wouldn’t be interesting if Joe Bloggs from down the street was reported on having an affair, or hacking a website without damaging it - just to prove to himself he can, which as I have now found out is all a lot of hackers are doing.

I remember back at high school and there were several groups of guys who would go on about how they have been hacking into certain websites (or trying to at least), or hacking into someone’s ‘neopets’ account just to muck around. At the time I never actually associated them with what my opinion of an “actual hacker” was, because I was purely following the media’s representation; however, after week 3 of COMS205 I have now learnt that hacking is a ‘boy culture’ and predominantly between the ages of 14 and 20 anyway. So little to my knowledge, I have in fact met several real-life hackers!

Internet Users & Identity

“Online interaction strips away many of the cues and signs that are part of face-to-face interaction. This poverty of signals is both a limitation and a resource, making certain kinds of interaction more difficult, but also providing room to play with one’s identity.”
Kollock and Smith, 1999; 9.

I found this quote used by Erika in our Week 2 lecture slides really interesting. With virtual communication you never get to see that instant reaction the other person involved gives - be it a look on their face, or the tone of their reply – whereas in Real Life social situations we often judge people based on how we perceive them from afar; the signals they give us and to others. Most of us today have at one point or another communicated via the internet, and one of the most fascinating things I find is the length of time that one person can put into their reply or comment. Communication mediums such as email and chatrooms do not require the instant reply that would be expected in a face-to-face situation, so people can sit there carefully planning their reply, making sure the wording perfectly reflects the identity they wish to portray at the time. I mean, how many of you have held down that backspace key after reading over a comment you are just about to post on a forum, or an email you have just drafted? I know I certainly have!

Another similar occurrence I have seen in virtual communities is people changing their username. I have seen people post something that could be somewhat controversial within their community, something that taints the identity they have been building, so they simply create a new account with the hope of starting afresh. However, while this can sometimes work in their favour, the community often recognises the user, through things such as their style of writing, and can instantly detect that they have made a new usernamer/account. I think that really shows how tight the relationships within some virtual communities can become, but also how important identity is to users on the internet.