I don't really think "hacking" vs. "cracking" terminology confusion has much to do with computer illiteracy, given that this is really about a sociological phenomenon more than something to do with how a computer works. It does have a lot to do with the fact that too many policy-makers and other influential people seem incapable of rational thought or willingness to understand the history of things.

Anyway, I don't understand why reclaiming the word "hacker" and creating this hacker-cracker dichotomy actually matters. Of course hackers included a lot of people who would try to access computer systems without authorization, which is illegal (and there are "white hats" who do that too) -- though in most cases, they didn't actually want to do nefarious on those systems, it was more about the intellectual challenge and thrill of the hunt. Excluding that activity from "hacking" seems artificial and ahistorical to me, but it seems necessary as a rhetorical move for a political movement with which I sympathize, so that's cool, whatever. What I object to is that you're presenting all this as a lecture about facts and then telling me I must be wrong about my thought on what a "hacker" is because I'm "computer illiterate" -- when you're just retconning and I don't even think fairly describing what the people who are reclaiming the word hacking are actually saying.

-- BahradSokhansanj - 29 Nov 2011