Doesn't hacking mean all of the things people mention? Including the bleeding into organised crime that the last 10 years seems to have seen? Whereas that connection would have been pretty much false for the 1980s-early1990s hacking (as in illicit computer intrusion) groups, it certainly doesn't seem so false nowadays. And I'll even add something not really mentioned hacktivism, which seems interestingly absent. All of these terms are contestable but we should have some awareness of the changing history of the term, the sources of that history (Levy's Hacker Ethic has a lot to answer for), the difficulty of data and so on. Which are some of the points already made. Trying to claim the title of 'hacker' for one component of what is a wider community which is also in conflict with itself, doesn't seem a useful way to develop greater understanding. The point is hacking means nearly all the things or is part of the things listed in these arguments; so what does that make hacking? I'd argue it's a particular attitude to technology and society which can be seen in Electronic Disturbance Theatre's Floodnet and in Stuxnet, and Anonymous' use of ddos software, and in Free Softwares rewriting of code. Maybe we should think about the 'and'. Oh, and hackers who break laws do get caught, have always gotten caught and will continue to get caught. Not all of them, but not all bank robbers get caught either. Dr Tim Jordan, Senior Lecturer, Culture, Media and Creative Industries, Digital Humanities, Creative Arts Administrative Centre, Room 5D, D Floor, Chesham Building, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England Phone: +44 (0)20 78481100