Interesting reading of Pasta&Vinegar which quotes an academic paper* dividing the widespread of (unconscious?) hacking in three categories:
Baroque, creolization, cannibalism and technology adoption
“Baroque layering: The most basic way in which users can appropriate a technology is for them to use the personalization features that are provided to them with that intent in mind. As technical objects, mobile phones come with many such affordances. These include for example the ability to change the ringtone, screen wallpaper, upload one’s phonebook, set up short-cuts for most-often called numbers, download games, and upload one’s music, photo, or video collection.
(…)
Creolization represents a deeper transformation, a more profound form of appropriation. It refers to practices where the user recombines or reprograms elements of the technology. In this appropriation mode, by contrast with baroque layering, users are more deeply involved in changing the technology. They now explore ways to adapt the technology beyond the options that have been designed by the phone makers and service providers.
(…)
Cannibalism: This third form of appropriation is the most extreme in the sense that it corresponds to practices where the user chooses to engage in direct conflict with the suppliers of the technology (or at least with the power relation as embodied in the technology.) Cannibalism includes modifications of the device that place the user in direct opposition with the providers’ business model, destruction of the device.“”
(via Pasta&Vinegar.)
* the academic “Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: baroque infiltration, creolization and cannibalism” by Bar, Pisani and Weber can be found here.