Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#81

Post by Nasrudith »

fzeroracer wrote: post #39

I'm not sure what the problem is. I've refactored methods and functions all the time to try and improve clarity. Removing words, changing meaning so that people who read it grok it. I don't have a problem with changing terms. But people take a hard-line ideological stance against it because they perceive change as being weak or a slippery slope or something.

It is because of the actor really. Conceptually their strategy is "if they give an inch take a mile and keep on taking" while using every bit to beat them with it over every little petty issue. The way to shut them down is to tell them to take a hike from the start to deny any leverage. Reconsider if they have anything worthy of consideration.

Part of effecfive communication is not looking like a bad actor with an approach.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#82

Post by hintymad »

hprotagonist wrote: post #22

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may…

This is a damn good summary.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#83

Post by catalogia »

tasssko wrote: post #64
jointpdf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave: > “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.” The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolste…

When I think black and white I think night and day and not evil and good.

It's an unfortunate quirk of human brains that fear of the dark is a familiar experience to most children and many adults. I suppose it has something to do with nocturnal tigers hunting our ancestors. Association between nighttime and fear seems biologically unavoidable.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#84

Post by sumedh »

josteink wrote: post #67
mnm1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. BLM asks to put a stop to police brutality/racism and stupid white people decide to change the phrase "grandfathered" or "you guys" in response. Or to put down entire languages like Spanish because they use gendered nouns. A more tone deaf response would be hard to achieve. Even those of us who have supported the cause against police brutality and racism for years are now losing interest and energy. If th…

> just spreading corona And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona). At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.

> At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.

What is your solution to bring awareness against police brutality and systematic racism?

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#85

Post by TerminalSystem3 »

salawat wrote: post #42
el_nahual wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means…

Boulderdash. There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of . We use constructs like that all the time. Or are we going to start saying "red lights" are offensive? Or "yellow lights"? Around yellow proceed with caution! Red means Stop! Danger! How about "Dark rooms"? Should we avoid that? Change red-black trees to green purple? Or hell, lets rope the electrical engineers into it. How dare black be the col…

Well said, and I like the quote. I think it's telling that the top response to your comment completely dodges the substance of the comment and just attacks your "diction." It seems to me that these moral purists are basically in a state of war - any rational argument against their position is met with overreactions, emotional responses, and insults.

Sometimes I wonder whether some of this ridiculousness is put on by foreign influence operations. Because I could not imagine a more effective strategy to hand the election to Trump. Most people I know are rather appalled at the orwellian censorship of the current movement.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#86

Post by tridentlead »

abellerose wrote: post #12

I'm white so I can only postulate from other experiences where I can actually relate. I think the question of "black hat" may in fact be offensive is valid criticism of our culture using "black" to be on the opposite side of a spectrum compared to white; where humans think the white side is possibly noble while the black side deserves some form of contempt. I think it's a red herring to think about other combinations…

My herring is deeply offended.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#87

Post by TerminalSystem3 »

jointpdf wrote: post #48
fennecfoxen wrote: post #5

It's offensive in the same way as Call of Duty: Black Ops is offensive, which is "generally not actually offensive". However, it is possible to derive professional advancement from claiming that it is, so expect to see more of this in tech. Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.

I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave: > “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.” The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolste…

I think your argument is legitimate, but I do think there's a distinction between naturally letting words fall out of favor and forcing it. Words naturally fall out of favor when people simply stop using them - this is a process as old as language itself. This is separate from a group of people unilaterally changing commonly accepted terminology and getting upset and censoring when people don't go along with it.

The former, nobody thinks about - see words like "tubular", "rad", "phat", etc. The latter is rather Orwellian, as it's about enforcing a behavioral change on people. People (at least the ones I know) generally hate this, especially in the West.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#88

Post by hprotagonist »

hintymad wrote: post #82
hprotagonist wrote: post #22

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may…

This is a damn good summary.

C.S. Lewis had Dolores Umbridge's number long before she was ever dreamt up.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#89

Post by dingaling »

sukilot wrote: post #55
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #8

"> Discussions about the topic started late last night after David Kleidermacher[1], VP of Engineering at Google, and in charge of Android Security and the Google Play Store, withdrew from a scheduled talk he was set to give in August at the Black Hat USA 2020 security conference." it's usually entitled white people who feel immediately offended by this. With entitled I mean, finished university working at a top posi…

You got it precisely backwards. using "black" to mean both "African" and "evil", instead of using a separate word for the idea of evil, is a perfect example of Newspeak. The design of Newspeak is to force unintended meanings into words. Please get a copy of 1984 and read the appendix on Newspeak.

I think you need to check the etymology of 'black' in relation to skin colour. It dates to about the early 1600s derived from the term 'blackamoor' which is still used as an art term for figurines depicting African people in subservient postures.

Using the term 'black' in relation to people is therefore connected to the slave trade and I'd recommend that you cease using it instead of overloading it in that context.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#90

Post by hnick »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #5

It's offensive in the same way as Call of Duty: Black Ops is offensive, which is "generally not actually offensive". However, it is possible to derive professional advancement from claiming that it is, so expect to see more of this in tech. Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.

I agree with your conclusion (I think we need to be very careful to edit language, lest we forget the lessons of the past) but from the list you gave none of them have a negative connotation - except perhaps black swan, but it's a reference more to rarity. Black hat has an immediate negative connotation.
Post reply on HN