Print

[rgtaa]

here goes:

If bunnie was afraid to get involved with 360 for fear of MS coming after him. FINE, stay away!  Get out of here, but if you are still gonna have your hand in "hacking the 360" then relying info to MS , that sounds like you like "walking that fine line" ... and you appear an "ego-manic".  

I understand, we all do stuff when we are young, ok, but if you are grown-up now, and feel guilty about "hacking stuff" ....put away this "hacking" stuff and get a real job.  When I am done with stuff, I walk away, I don't keep my eyes and ears into behaviour that is not good for me.  YOU DO!  And you expect everyone to like you when obviously you think what "hackers" are doing is not MORAL in your mind. It says on 360 do not open, and you reversed engineered their stuff, isn't that against the law.  I don't care which way bunny goes, but he goes both ways and BRAG's about it.  And wants his REAL NAME known.  FAME!

 

[rgtaa]

Sounds like the "hackers" have to question their "friends" and ask them, "if I teach you stuff and share what I know, are you going to tell MS everything I show you?"  Simple question, and one that I never thought we would have to ask.

[twistedsymphony]

rgtaa you need to re-read the article because you obviously don't get it.

here are the 5 key points you seem to have missed:
1. Bunnie doesn't feel "guilty" he is "fearful" of legal retribution... that's not even close to the same thing as guilt despite the fact that both could lead you down the same path.

2. He doesn't want to use his real name for "fame", he already has fame, what difference does fame make if it's his real name or a pseudonym? The point is that he doesn't want to live in fear... he doesn't want to hide under an assumed name. He wants to keep doing what he's doing but he want to do it without living in FEAR.

3. He's not involved with hacking the 360 and he's not relaying information to MS... _RTFA_ he' was asked to attend meetings about discoveries by other hackers... it was THOSE other hackers decisions to relay the info not Bunnies. Bunnie simply attended as a gesture of good faith and to use the opportunity to explain the moders point of view as to why MS should legally allow things like Linux and XBMC.

Again if you RTFA he explains that the reaction he received was as if he was opening MS's eyes to what motivates people to mod their consoles beyond piracy.

4. reverse engineering is not illegal it's protected under the DMCA.

5. the real definition of a "hacker" is someone who explores how something works in an attempt of complete understanding and then works to expand it's functionality beyond it's original intent.  A hacker is not someone who exploits flaws with the intent of causing harm or damage or other wise "sticking it to the man" (THAT is a "cracker").

Apparently you're operating under the skewed perception created by dip-shit media outlets about what a hacker is and what they stand for. A responsible hacker either reports their findings to the owner of the system where the flaw was found, or they keep it to themselves so as to not cause collateral damage by releasing that knowledge to less responsible individuals.

Often responsible hackers who wish to publish their works will request to speak with the system designer or otherwise give them advanced notice before releasing the information publicly. Most if not all Xbox 1 hackers did this including Bunnie. The difference is that in the Xbox 1 days MS refused to listen.

[rgtaa]

Yeah , I guess we have to be on the same page as to the term "hacker".

So, the hacker code is tell company or keep to themselves.  I wasn't aware of that, thanks.

So hackers and modder's are on opposite sides.  Modders need a "hacker" to "crack" the box, so modder's can do their work.  

Gee, this is more confusing that I thought.  I did have "media" concept of "hacker"...  so you "hackers" aren't supportive of "modding" , because it would give the "box" a feature that "company" doesn't want.

Thanks for informing us, I was not aware of everything you wrote, and just used the term the way the media 'used the term hacker".

From modders standpoint, we don't want "white" hat hackers taking the 360 apart, because they have obligation to tell the company and not give info to modder. So , they have to not tell others, so 360 says closed.  So we have to ask if "hacker" is "white" hat or "black" hat.

Very confusing!

[Rustmonkey]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ May 17 2007, 11:42 AM)

rgtaa you need to re-read the article because you obviously don't get it.

here are the 5 key points you seem to have missed:
1. Bunnie doesn't feel "guilty" he is "fearful" of legal retribution... that's not even close to the same thing as guilt despite the fact that both could lead you down the same path.

2. He doesn't want to use his real name for "fame", he already has fame, what difference does fame make if it's his real name or a pseudonym? The point is that he doesn't want to live in fear... he doesn't want to hide under an assumed name. He wants to keep doing what he's doing but he want to do it without living in FEAR.

3. He's not involved with hacking the 360 and he's not relaying information to MS... _RTFA_ he' was asked to attend meetings about discoveries by other hackers... it was THOSE other hackers decisions to relay the info not Bunnies. Bunnie simply attended as a gesture of good faith and to use the opportunity to explain the moders point of view as to why MS should legally allow things like Linux and XBMC.

Again if you RTFA he explains that the reaction he received was as if he was opening MS's eyes to what motivates people to mod their consoles beyond piracy.

4. reverse engineering is not illegal it's protected under the DMCA.

5. the real definition of a "hacker" is someone who explores how something works in an attempt of complete understanding and then works to expand it's functionality beyond it's original intent.  A hacker is not someone who exploits flaws with the intent of causing harm or damage or other wise "sticking it to the man" (THAT is a "cracker").

Apparently you're operating under the skewed perception created by dip-shit media outlets about what a hacker is and what they stand for. A responsible hacker either reports their findings to the owner of the system where the flaw was found, or they keep it to themselves so as to not cause collateral damage by releasing that knowledge to less responsible individuals.

Often responsible hackers who wish to publish their works will request to speak with the system designer or otherwise give them advanced notice before releasing the information publicly. Most if not all Xbox 1 hackers did this including Bunnie. The difference is that in the Xbox 1 days MS refused to listen.

amen broth-a

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(rgtaa @ May 17 2007, 01:50 PM)

Yeah , I guess we have to be on the same page as to the term "hacker".

So, the hacker code is tell company or keep to themselves.  I wasn't aware of that, thanks.

So hackers and modder's are on opposite sides.  Modders need a "hacker" to "crack" the box, so modder's can do their work.  

Gee, this is more confusing that I thought.  I did have "media" concept of "hacker"...  so you "hackers" aren't supportive of "modding" , because it would give the "box" a feature that "company" doesn't want.

Very confusing!

Hackers are usually only concerned with their own work and their own understanding they want to know how things work and they want to expand the capability of a system beyond it's designed means... a hacker is essentially anyone who tinkers with something.

In general a hacker quests for knowledge and has tremendous respect for the creators of the system they're tinkering with... it is this respect that drives them to release information responsibly.

for instance someone who tinkers with a cars and modifies them for more power or adds in new features is a hacker too, just not a computer hacker.

Releasing that information publicly is a matter of personal preference and politics, most hackers hack for their own benefit of knowledge and exploration, some like to share that knowledge with others in a community, but those hackers that are responsible will do so in a way as to not damage or at least reduce the amount of damage done to the system in which they have respect for.

Crackers on the other hand are essentially hackers who wish to do damage to a system, or hack not for personal knowledge but for profit.

A hacker might exploit a system so that he can run his own software or his favorite operating system (linux)... a cracker might exploit a system so that he can make a profit selling modchips and pirated software.

it's all about the motivation behind what they're doing.

Moders don't really factor into this, moders could theoretically be hackers or crackers. a moder who uses a modchip or exploit to run Linux is a hacker... they're just not on the same level as BETTER hackers like Bunnie. Just because they're using work done by others to do their hacking doesn't make them any less of a hacker. Similarly someone who installs modchips to sell pirated game or otherwise damage MS (or anyone else) is a cracker... just not a GOOD cracker capable of developing the cracks themselves.

The mass media, news outlets and the uninformed generally use the term "hacker" to describe a cracker... and assume any real hackers must be crackers as well, simply because they don't understand the quest for personal knowledge.

just because most hackers do things responsibly and not-maliciously doesn't mean they'd always go out of their way to prevent others from doing things. Many hackers take the stance that as long as they give prior notice to MS or whoever it's no their problem if the crackers use the info they've released to do damage.... hackers aren't against cracker, they're not against moders, they're not against anyone...  if there are hackers that are against crackers (and there are quite a few out there) that is a matter of personal preference and has nothing to do with the definition of a hacker.

[rgtaa]

LOL!

So to MOD we need "crackers" not "hackers"!

Thanks again for the info, you are a very good writer.  Great insight.  Sorry for anything I said before, that offended anyone, because I was "ignorant"!  

The "media" mis-taught me about "hacker/cracker" and the "reasoning" behind the two.

[cerealkillajme]

I was going to post something similar to TS's posts earlier and I'm glad I didn't, he explained it probably 100x better than I think I would have  

I was also thinking about the car anaology and think that is a great way of explaining it. Some people I know that have never heard of console modding will use words like "modded" and such when talking of car customization (which feels funny as hell to hear though)  

Great post TS  

[DuBob4432]

QUOTE

4. reverse engineering is not illegal it's protected under the DMCA.

seriously??

[Keshire]

People need to quit being dicks about it. This is a completely understandable stance from all sides. It's not fun and games anymore when Microsoft brings down the hammer and ruins your entire life. Which they are capable of. These people have something to lose. By going this route they ensure they can continue their hobby without repercussions.

People need to get over the fact that they aren't doing it for others. They do it because they enjoy it.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(DuBob4432 @ May 17 2007, 02:22 PM)

seriously??

reverse engineering provisions is one of the few things "hackers" have as protection in the DMCA.

the problem is that "copyright circumvention" is explicitly illegal in the DMCA.

So if you hack the console yourself and run Linux on it that is completely legal...

if you hack the console and release that information and others use that information to pirate games (copyright circumvention) now you risk legal repercussion because you've enabled others to circumvent copy protections, even if that wasn't your intent...

This is why Xbox 1 modchips come loaded with Cromwell and are essentially "legal" alone they're not breaking any DRM... once you load on an Evox or an X2 bios not only are you pirating (those bios are essentially pirated and modified bioses) but you're circumventing the console's copy protection... and that is illegal.

So you can see where the "gray line" comes in... the law in these matters is rarely based on your intent but by the results of what you've done.

I am not a lawyer though so don't take anything I say on the matter as unequivocal truth, it's just how I understand the law.

[ekszbox]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ May 17 2007, 08:09 PM)

In general a hacker quests for knowledge and has tremendous respect for the creators of the system they're tinkering with..

Yes, but many people who call themsleves hackers are actually crackers i.e. computer hackers/internet hackers etc.
So in general hacker actually means cracker, even if that is not the truest meaning.

Hacker means many things, if one were to reverse engineer an encryption algorithm, one would usually say I cracked an encryption algorithm, not I hacked an encryption algorithm, which doesn't really sound right no matter what your motivation in regard to cracking/hacking the encryption.

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ May 17 2007, 08:09 PM)

hackers aren't against cracker, they're not against moders, they're not against anyone...  if there are hackers that are against crackers (and there are quite a few out there) that is a matter of personal preference and has nothing to do with the definition of a hacker.

Yes it does have something to do with the definition.

(Wordweb)

"A programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism"

"A programmer for whom computing is its own reward; may enjoy the challenge of breaking into other computers but does no harm"
"true hackers subscribe to a code of ethics and look down upon crackers"

Of course these are also faulty as many 'true' crackers have codes of ethics, but different to the codes of ethics 'true' hackers would have.


KM