Part of the reason hacker subculture is so widely misunderstood is that there does not exist a consistent, widely agreed upon definition of the hacker (Loper  2001:1). Researchers have not recorded as many direct observations of hacker activity in academic literature compared to other prominent subcultures. This lack of empirical evidence has allowed for biased interpretations of complex activity, some that may appear criminal to uneducated individuals. Sociologist Kall Loper has developed a typology of hackers based on subculture theory. He uses historical data, media sources, self-identification techniques, and foundational materials to empirically define hacker subcultural and deviance (Loper 2001:1). Labeling theory suggests that the dominant culture defines the social norms and has the power to assign deviant labels to groups that violate these unspoken customs and values. While many individuals place blame on hackers’ extreme stance on privacy and anonymity for the subculture’s deviant label, they neglect to acknowledge that the driving force behind this anonymity resides in the label itself, which often forces the subculture participants underground. Hackers’ deviant labels, assigned to them by outsiders who hold social power, indirectly cause the suspect behavior that people blame for increased rates of cybercrime (Coleman  2011:513).

The stigmatized image associated with hacker subcultures has been a topic of debate among the sociological community. Exercising stigma management, many hacker subculturalists advocate for a greater distinction between hackers, who provide constructive technological development for society, and crackers, those who intentionally use their computer-security skills to bring harm to other computer systems (Richet 2013:55). Richet argues that cybercrimes, such as internet extortion and fraud, stem from a rogue group within the hacker community – not the subculture as a whole. The majority of juvenile hackers deem “fun” and “curiosity” as the top two reasons for participating in hacking (Richet 2013:58). While hacking provides opportunity for low-income teenagers, with lack of social mobility and opportunities, to easily make money and prevent serious cybercrime, cracking is the embodiment of those serious criminal offenses that hacking tries to prevent. For example, hackers use their skills to quickly fix bugs in a company’s system. Those who participate in cracking may view it as a graduation from “immature” computer pranks such as small hacks, but hacking (in itself) does not imply criminal activity. Only after leaving the legal market for underground crimes do hackers transition to crackers (Richet 2013:58).

Researcher Sarah Gordon, who studies the psychology of virus writers and hackers, helps to distinguish the difference between hackers and crackers. Hacking requires both a distinct skillset and distinct mindset from virus writers. In her studies, hackers often held negative perceptions of virus writers, specifically for their disregard of indiscriminate danger and lack of real “system knowledge” (Gordon  2001). With age, the majority of adolescent hackers eventually distance themselves from the subculture. Many continue to work with computer systems or security companies and leave the reckless virus writing and selling in the past. It is the crackers that make a career out of the criminal activity (Gordon 2001). As previously mentioned, the definition of hacker has shifted from “technological wizard” to “electronic vandal” since the 1950s (Kleinknecht  2003:4). Technology professionals often held hackers in high esteem because of their devotion to the field. In fact, second generation hackers such as Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak brought computer hardware to the public. Society often forgets the importance of early hackers and their non-criminal origins and contributions (Kleinknecht 2003:5-6).