If he physically broke in we wouldn't call him a nortorious lockpicker.
The problem is that people are numb to news about "hackers" because often it's some sort of dumb story about some teenager messing around in somebody else's network and a netsec or government bureaucracy overreacting rather than properly securing their network, whereas this case is basically an instance of terrorism. It should not be possible for me to be confused which kind of hacking story this is from the headline. If I had come across that headline in the wild I would almost certainly ignored it due to the above.
Other folks in the comments have brought up the term "cyber-criminal", which I think also fails this same test for exactly the same reasons.
The terms "hacker" and "criminal" are as mutually exclusive as "engineer" and "robber". Yes, maybe the robber knows how locks work so she can pick them, but "engineer" implies some level of ethics.
I mean read Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” (with the actors who pretended to be shocked).
It was fascinating until he got to the theoretical implications. All cybernetic gobbledegook.
I prefer thinking of the “helmsman” of Ancient Greece when I hear Cyber/Kuber.
In the IPA, the sound of the French 'u' or German 'ü' is written with as 'y'. E.g. French "tu" -> [ty].
To speakers of languages without that sound, it often gets mapped to the vowel sound in the English word "loose".
So you can see what's happened here, "cybernetics" with the "Greek 'y'" pronounced as French "u" becomes "kubernetes".
I don't know if modern Greek still has that sound.
I love little realisations like this. Sometimes I wish I'd done linguistics instead of computer science.
Incidentally, the word "governor" comes from "kubernetes" as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_phonology#Vowel_...
It seems some varieties of Ancient Greek did have that sound
If you want to pass legislation to eliminate peoples privacy and justify the fascist governance structure (government + corporations working together) in deanonymising individuals, you have to show that it is special. This is what is really going on - its not actually some special new type of crime that the law hadn't catered for - that's just what its sold as.
So, because 'online is the problem' is actually a sales job, the more one heightens the risk of 'online', 'hackers', etc the easier it is to take everyone's privacy away on account of the perceived thread and the purported fix. People will be happy someone is doing something, given a terrible event (crime) occurred!
The reality is that crimes will always occur; the threats to safety are overblown and already covered by the law; the fix does not materialise as indicated. But if you were sold on the idea (as most are) and thought it would make a difference you will sign up (to less online freedom). It doesn't even matter that this is happened in Finland, or whether it even happened at all - as long as people think handing over more control to the governance structure is the solution.
The truth is that you bought into the ostensible excuses. No need to keep making that mistake though!
It's important to keep hammering it.
We don’t call him a hacker because he hasn’t been convicted. Your statement seems to miss the point of the parent comment.
Beyond reasonable doubt to take someone’s freedom. Not to privately judge them.