>Many of the country’s top security officials attended the briefing, including Alexander, Dempsey, Robert Mueller, the head of the F.B.I., and Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Gen. Martin Dempsey - Old School Armored Cavalry Officer. Knows lots about killing people, not a single thing about network security.
Robert Mueller - Old School Cop. Knows lots about bank robberies. Doesn't know anything about network security nor does he care to learn about it.
Janet Napolitano - Given direct authority over a large part of the federal government's cyber-defense capabilities, knows fuck-all about network security. Doesn't like using computers.
Surely more than one (Alexander) actual security expert attended the meeting?
That phrase does not preclude the attendance of other officials, some of who may be actual security experts, nor does it preclude the attendance of their staff, some of who (one would hope) most definitely are the security experts.
Right, but the context of the article was using them as examples of security experts. When you give examples to support a statement, you should give the best examples you can come up with.
Some articles flow better when they follow a specific person / character / personality. Also, some journalists are more comfortable with this narrative form ... or may be limited in how many others they can bring into a compelling story.
Words can, do, and should have multiple definitions. Every dictionary can tell you that.
"Hacker" is the fastest, easiest way to communicate the concept of "someone who breaks into computers illegally", if you said "cracker" or anything else, no layperson would know what you're talking about.
I remember reading a blog post[1] by a person whose tech/startup related business had them travelling in/out of the US on a semi-regular basis. They were stopped and questioned by immigration officials during one such trip. Here's a quote from the post:
I further explained that my current work visa application had been complicated due to a filing mistake and that I had been waiting on a decision. This fell on deaf ears. They searched my backpack, found my hackathon badge which drew incredible suspicion and asked, “What’s a hackathon? Are you a hacker?” I slowly explained that I’m a social entrepreneur promoting global change through the concept of ‘hackathons’ where attendees work together and find solutions to community issues within a tight time constraint. They were dismissive and didn’t seem to want to hear an explanation.
I don't disagree with you that the conversation relating to the dominant definition of the word "hacker" and related terms is over with the more narrow mainstream definition winning out. I do think however, that the disparate meanings of the word and related terms can lead to some surprisingly unfortunate misunderstandings. Maybe one solution is for people like us to start using a different word for what we typically mean when we use "hacker" in the more general sense. Though I guess if that hasn't happened by now, it's probably not going to.
It seems that more and more people understand that the word has multiple meanings and connotations. Look at the widespread use of terms like "lifehacking" and "IKEA hacking".
The word "cracker" has no traction whatsoever. Partly because it sounds like something you put cheese on and partly because prominent crackers refuse to embrace it.
I'm not saying the current situation is ok, I'm just saying the fight is hopeless.
Gen. Martin Dempsey - Old School Armored Cavalry Officer. Knows lots about killing people, not a single thing about network security.
Robert Mueller - Old School Cop. Knows lots about bank robberies. Doesn't know anything about network security nor does he care to learn about it.
Janet Napolitano - Given direct authority over a large part of the federal government's cyber-defense capabilities, knows fuck-all about network security. Doesn't like using computers.
Surely more than one (Alexander) actual security expert attended the meeting?