The Hacker Matrix

[albedoa]

Since they're looking for feedback, I'd suggest changing either of the "Simple" or "Innovative" labels, as those words are not necessarily antonyms.

Perhaps "Simple" and "Complex" if that's what they're going for. Or "Traditional" and "Innovative" if they are referring to the novelty of the method.

[codeodor]

Along the same line, the "Good, Bad, or Murky" value judgements are dependent on the POV, so it would be nice to see them explain how / why certain attacks got labelled one way as opposed to the others.

[dmooney1]

Perhaps a third dimension? Certainly there are simple and innovative hacks. Certainly there are complex, traditional hacks.

[turbojerry]

They definitely have things wrong here, for example LulzSec is way on the Simple side where as Gary McKinnon is on the Innovative side, Gary looked for blank passwords whereas LulzSec did much more complex cracks. So while the IEEE do lots of good work which I respect, here they have at best made a mistake and at worst are taking a political position which is contrary to the facts to help get Gary extradited. If it is the former, I hope they swiftly correct the error and if it the later, then they have lost me as a customer forever.

[danohuiginn]

The 'high impact' hacks are mostly 'bad', the 'low impact' ones are mostly good.

This may of course be accurate; it's easier to destroy things than to improve them.

[p4bl0]

There's also so many diffrent kind of impact. Like albedoa and codeodor said, the graphic is poorly labeled and the data poorly categorized.

[murz]

> Note: If you're using Internet Explorer 7, the dots on the chart will not appear in the correct place.

Go figure.