During the second week of the second month of the first year known as much for letters as numbers (Y2K), some of the world's major Web sites suddenly shut down. Yahoo.com, eBay.com, Amazon.com, CNN.com and others were jammed for hours by assailants bombarding them with a paralysing volume of requests for data. It was, in the sometimes stilted vernacular of the Internet, a "denial of service" that shook up many people's confidence in the Web in general, and electronic commerce in particular.

After the attack there was plenty of outrage to go around. Businesses wanted to know why they were targeted. Frustrated consumers wanted to know why companies weren't doing more to fortify their sites. Nervous investors wanted to know if they should start selling high-tech stocks. The RCMP and FBI wanted to know who was responsible.

Some of the most fervent anger came from members of another group, who wanted to know why most news organizations were referring to the culprits as hackers instead of crackers. Here is a sample of their complaints:

"For at least the third time in as many months, CBC has run a news story about 'hackers' when the correct term for malicious computer vandals is 'cracker'. I would have hoped that by now a professional news organization like CBC would properly research things like this and realise what the correct terminology is . . . ."

"These are acts of vandalism and thus the perpetrators are vandals. While it is entirely possible that the vandals may also turn out to be hackers, to automatically assume that they're hackers is like assuming someone who erases a file is a hacker. We find that there are already ample words in the English language to describe such miscreants, and call upon the media to define them by their actions . . . ."

Is cracker the correct word? Is hacker wrong? First, let's look at the facts.

OXFORD

The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1999) describes a hacker as "a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data" or "an enthusiastic computer programmer or user." The book, as thick as a loaf of bread, contains more than 350,000 definitions, but not one of them makes a connection between the word cracker and computers.

WEBSTER'S

The 1998 Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that a hacker is either "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer" or "a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system." The tome lists more than a quarter of a million definitions but, again, does not link the word cracker to computers.

CANADIAN OXFORD

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) goes a bit further. After the usual, lengthy description of cracker (as a thin dry biscuit, a paper cylinder given out at parties that makes a sharp noise when pulled at both ends, a type of firework, a notable or attractive person, a fine example of something, and an offensive term for a poor white person in the southern United States), there, at the bottom of the heap, are the words: "in computing, a hacker who wilfully damages or destroys the information or systems accessed." To some editors at Oxford, then, a cracker is a type of hacker.

HOW HACKERS SEE THEMSELVES

According to The New Hacker's Dictionary (Third Edition, published by MIT Press in 1996), hacker has eight meanings, including "a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities," or "who programs enthusiastically, even obsessively," or who's both good and fast at programming, or who's "an expert or enthusiast of any kind . . . an astronomy hacker, for example." The eighth entry is more of a concession than a definition, because it begins with the word "deprecated" in brackets: "a malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around." The New Hacker's Dictionary immediately states that the correct word is cracker, which it defines as "one who breaks security on a system."

The most telling passages deal with connotation, not denotation. "Hackers consider themselves something of an elite, a meritocracy based on ability," the book states. "There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in identifying yourself as a hacker." On the other hand, it claims that while "crackers often like to describe themselves as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form of life." In addition to being viewed as less talented, crackers are accused of not following a code of ethics — for example, committing acts of theft and vandalism for fun.

ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

The noun cracker was coined by hackers around 1985, according to MIT Press, "in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker." So why hasn't it caught on? It's worth noting that by the mid-1980s Oxford had already defined the verb hack in two new ways: "to gain unauthorized access to computer files" or "to use a computer for the satisfaction that it gives." Perhaps cracker was not so much an attempt to educate the media, then, as a desire to rewrite the dictionary.

A SOUND CHOICE

As silly as it might sound, the very sound of words can play a part in people's perceptions. For instance, smellfungus refers to someone who grumbles a lot, not someone who refuses to bathe, which may help explain why it hasn't had many takers since first appearing in 1766. To some, cracker might suggest stealth and expertise (such as a burglar cracking a safe or a spy deciphering a code), while hacker could imply loudness and crudeness (such as a person hacking away at wood with an axe or at a Web site with malice.)

Indeed, many journalists find it amusing that anyone would treasure the word hacker since the first syllable is so closely associated with mediocre writing. A hack is a "mere scribbler" or a "literary drudge" who produces second-rate work for money. It's related to hackneyed, meaning common — a term trotted out after ordinary riding horses, known as hacks, became available for hire in England around 1600. A few years earlier, the verb hack also meant to cut up or mangle words, which is why William Shakespeare said: "Let them keep their limbs whole, and hack our English." (The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 3, Scene 1.)

ENERGY VERSUS INGENUITY

It has been repeatedly pointed out that most "denial of service" assaults are not very sophisticated. (One FBI investigator said "a 15-year-old kid could launch these attacks" using tools easily available on the Internet.) However, does that necessarily mean the word hacker is a bad choice? As already mentioned, the 1999 Oxford defines hacker as either an expert or an enthusiast, and no one can deny that the people responsible for overloading the big Web sites had plenty of enthusiasm if not genuine expertise.

JARRING JARGON

So what do all these meanings actually mean to a newsroom in the year 2000? If the big dictionaries are any guide, most people who speak English consider a cracker something you eat with cheese, or get prizes out of at a child's birthday bash. Today, a headline screaming "Crackers attack computer sites" has the advantage of alliteration but little else. The average person would probably be confused. On the other hand, "Hackers attack computer sites" is immediately understood.

In his 1998 book The Internet: No Experience Required, Christian Crumlish sums it up this way: "Among hackers, anyone who can bend a computer to his or her will is a hacker, whereas people who break into computer systems are called crackers. In the rest of the world, people generally refer to those who break into computers as hackers." This may explain why the RCMP, FBI, U.S. attorney general's office, and others described February's assailants as hackers.

VANDALS

By the way, purists have argued that if you launch an attack against a Web site without actually busting through a security wall you're not really a cracker since you haven't slipped inside. So if you aren't a cracker, and don't qualify as a hacker, what are you? A whacker? Or maybe just wacko? Some people have suggested vandal, which is fine since they're all dead and won't write any e-mail complaints to the CBC. (Vandalism comes from the word Vandals, who were members of a Germanic tribe that invaded Western Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries.)

CONCLUSION

Language is alive. Words come and go. Definitions change. And many, if not most, words wind up with more than one meaning, which is referred to as polysemy. When the meanings are contradictory you have a contronym. (For instance, fast can suggest stuck firmly or moving quickly, and winding up a meeting is the opposite of winding up a watch.) For centuries, hacker has been polysemic. Its meanings have included someone who cuts wood, coughs, stammers, breaks up land with a mattock, or plays golf poorly. For at least 15 years hacker has enjoyed three other definitions: (1) a computer enthusiast; (2) a computer expert; and (3) someone who breaks into computer systems. Nobody owns the word. Nobody can force people to use it in a certain way.

In a manual on writing a few years ago, Michael Enright of CBC Radio argued that journalists at the corporation have a responsibility to write clearly, using standard English. "We do not pioneer or set trends with the language," he said. "We do not follow the lead in accepting new words and phrases." Enright's words are now part of the 1999 CBC Television Style Guide as well.

Although it's doubtful that computer terms such as phreaking (making free phone calls), smurfing (launching "denial of service attacks" in a certain way), or packet monkeys (mischief makers who send unwanted signals echoing over the Internet) will make it into mainstream English any time soon, cracker has a good chance. Being defined as a specific type of hacker in one respected dictionary is a start. But there are no guarantees with neologisms. Just because you want people to start using an expression doesn't mean they will. Shakespeare, who came up with at least 1,700 new words (from hint and hurry to gust and gloomy), struck out with barky, brisky, and tortive. John Milton failed with inquisiturient. And Charles Dickens tried to give the world vocular. In the words of U.S. writer Bill Bryson, "The world didn't want it."