Excellent post. Thanks for this. Just some thoughts.

The terms 'white hat' and 'black hat' are generalisations. The New Hacker's Dictionary defines a black hat as "A cracker, someone bent on breaking into the system you are protecting." A 'white hat', on the other hand is an "ally or security specialist".
Note the word generalisation. People will always disagree and try to redefine and pigeon hole hackers. But this is pretty much right on the money.

I would rather hire an ethical burglar for that job. (If there is an "ethical burglar")
Interesting. I think there is a little more "honour among thieves" with hackers, at least in some circles. But is it always theft or just the exploration of the unknown by inquisitive minds?

There was a famous case here in Sweden where a company wanted to hire someone who had been arrested for cracking. They paid his legal fees during a trial. We hire people who send us CVs instead of breaking into a bank.
I'm glad this was brought up. A lot of people have heard stories where someone has broken into a company's system and then been ask to work for the company who was really impressed by the hacker's incredible skills. Sure, this does happen. But in the real world, it's mostly CV's and interviews. Sorry if this shatters the dreams of some elite wannabes.

What I'd like to see is a whole generation of legitimately certified experts who have something to prove: that they are trustworthy, and that they have the skills.
There is no doubt that the IT industry needs to agree on a set of certication that will help IT take the next step into become a real profession on par with law, accounting, medicine etc. But how do you certify someone as being trustworthy? This is a personal ethical stance that must be applied to every decision that one has to make over their careers. Trust can only be vaguely measured on reputation as even this can be misleading.