Paul Dourish

Steve Jobs was not a "hacker". [‡] He knew almost nothing about computer languages, computer architecture, and according to Neil Young, he listened to vinyl records at home [1] — which shows that he was ignorant of how audio quality works (see [2]). Steve did not contribute any original ideas or any important technological innovations. He claimed during his Stanford commencement speech that if Macintosh had not included eye pleasing typography, then computers would never have had typographically pleasing typefaces (because "Microsoft just copied Apple); this is ludicrous. In fact, Apple's software patents for digital typography added unnecessary difficulties. [3] Many people are unhappy about Apple culture of paranoia, litigation, and features that restrict user's freedoms that Steve created.

Steve is known for having a great sense of design, but it seems that he only had taste in choosing among the good designs of others. Just look at the yacht he designed without Jonathan Ive's collaboration. [4]

Many of you may say that I'm missing the point; that his ability to convince others of what was important and his "vision" is what made him great. My contention is that he appropriated other people's original ideas, and other people implemented his modifications. I'll admit that directing such efforts is not an easy thing to do, and most breakthroughs are improvements upon others' ideas. But it is very rare for the original creators to be alive and ignored while the modifier is…

Well, first off; I have to ask which definition of "hacker" we're running off of here:

From the Jargon File ("Around 1988"[0]):

HACKER [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] n. 1. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.

2. One who programs enthusiastically, or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.

3. A person capable of appreciating hack value (q.v.).

4. A person who is good at programming quickly. Not everything a hacker produces is a hack.

5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; example: "A SAIL hacker". (Definitions 1 to 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)

6. A malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information by poking around. Hence "password hacker", "network hacker".

If were talking one through four, you can probably just look at talks by open source project leaders at various conferences. Take a look at various bulletin boards, etc.

If were talking 6, then I would like to add that in my experience the speech used generally changes with skill and age. The security experts I've met, who seemed worthy of the title, seemed to have a very sophisticated sort of tone, almost formal. But I don't have very much experience in this area.

Though I agree with SiVal, minute for minute, research spent on…

>There's some kind of idea going around

It's not new, by any stretch. I remember seeing such many references in the early 2000s and beyond. Doing some vague poking around textfiles.com, I didn't pull any easy to find 1980s 'boxen' references. It almost looks like it might have been the addition of 'unix boxen' to the 'new hacker dictionary' by esr which spread the joke into the mid-90s communities. I wasn't online at that point myself, so I can't speak from any personal experience. But the various hacker zines etc are using 'boxen' by the later 90s and early 2000s, which would allow for it to have spread through the folks of the time finding and trolling through esr's version of the 'hacker dictionary'. https://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html complains about esr adding unix references, and does not include any boxen references that are found in the http://cd.textfiles.com/hackersencyc/ETC/MISC/JARG_331.TXT version folks in the 90s would likely have spread around.

edit: nope. definitely there in the 80s on usenet

so he was just encoding existing slang usage, rather than introducing it, on this point.

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?id=net.wanted&mid=PDI0MkBjdmwuVVVDUD4

more edit: considered the second oldest boxen reference in the usenet archive is esr himself, maybe he was the one pushing it :)

https://www.usenetarchives.com/view.php?id=comp.sys.att&mid=PDFTRFNjNiM1UEQ1REs9ZXJpY0BzbmFyay51dS5uZXQ%2B

DAEMON (day'mun, dee'mun) [archaic form of "demon", which has slightly different connotations (q.v.)] n. A program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. The idea is that the perpetrator of the condition need not be aware that a daemon is lurking (though often a program will commit an action only because it knows that it will implicitly invoke a daemon). For example, writing a file on the lpt spooler's directory will invoke the spooling daemon, which prints the file. The advantage is that programs which want (in this example) files printed need not compete for access to the lpt. They simply enter their implicit requests and let the daemon decide what to do with them. Daemons are usually spawned automatically by the system, and may either live forever or be regenerated at intervals. Usage: DAEMON and DEMON (q.v.) are often used interchangeably, but seem to have distinct connotations. DAEMON was introduced to computing by CTSS people (who pronounced it dee'mon) and used it to refer to what is now called a DRAGON or PHANTOM (q.v.). The meaning and pronunciation have drifted, and we think this glossary reflects current usage.

https://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html

I read ESR’s jargon files as a teenager and was very inspired. It wasn’t until a week ago that I learned about the original hacker’s dictionary via the Scheme community. Interestingly, the preserved copy comes with this preamble addressing ESR’s copy:

[This file, jargon.txt, was maintained on MIT-AI for many years, before being published by Guy Steele and others as the Hacker's Dictionary. Many years after the original book went out of print, Eric Raymond picked it up, updated it and republished it as the New Hacker's Dictionary. Unfortunately, in the process, he essentially destroyed what held it together, in various ways: first, by changing its emphasis from Lisp-based to UNIX-based (blithely ignoring the distinctly anti-UNIX aspects of the LISP culture celebrated in the original); second, by watering down what was otherwise the fairly undiluted record of a single cultural group through this kind of mixing; and third, by adding in all sorts of terms which are "jargon" only in the sense that they're technical. This page, however, is pretty much the original, snarfed from MIT-AI around 1988. -- jpd.]

https://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html

Helen Nissenbaum (now at Cornell Tech) wrote a famous paper framing privacy as Contextual Integrity, which has been highly influential for researchers on computer privacy as well as public policy makers.

The Wikipedia entry on Contextual Integrity is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_Integrity

The basic idea is that rather than focusing on broad rules about privacy (like the Fair Information Practices, which underpins almost all privacy laws today), it's important to understand the norms around what is appropriate and inappropriate in specific contexts.

In my field of human-computer interaction, Paul Dourish is perhaps the best known researcher that straddles philosophy and software (though I'm sure philosophers would consider him more of a software person). He has several well-known papers, e.g. on "spaces vs places" for collaborative software (http://www.dourish.com/publications/1996/cscw96-place.pdf), on privacy as boundary negotiation, on why ethnographic research shouldn't have to discuss implications for design (http://onemvweb.com/sources/ethnography/implication_design.pdf), and more.