Saying you shouldn't do it because hacking is a crime is even worse than saying you shouldn't lock your doors because stealing is a crime. I say worse because in that case at least your point about deadly force could possibly apply - you can physically stop a robber if you happen to be home. Good luck beating up a 12 year old script kiddie stealing your e-banking creds through a Tor reverse shell you aren't even aware is installed on your computer because you ran what is essentially a web browser from before sandboxing was invented on your primary computer.
Maybe it was, I don't know. What law in PA requires a proportionate response?
If you don't like the laws of PA, register to vote and work to change them.
>Running old proprietary software which connects to untrusted servers in a secure environment like a VM is very good advice.
Yes, but the problem is most people don't know how to do that, so it's not useful to the types of people who have the freedom and time to experiment... the newbies... who are often quite young.
>Saying you shouldn't do it because hacking is a crime is even worse than saying you shouldn't lock your doors because stealing is a crime.
There's a difference between "lock your doors" and "lock your doors, get bars on your windows, set up an alarm, live on the third floor with no elevator, and keep a phone and a weapon next to a bed behindn a locked door" (which seems to be the level of "reasonable" security some folks here seem to want, to draw analogies from the physical world.
>Good luck beating up a 12 year old script kiddie stealing your e-banking creds through a Tor reverse shell you aren't even aware is installed on your computer because you ran what is essentially a web browser from before sandboxing was invented on your primary computer.
I'll just get a new credit card number or report the ach as fraudulent. I have MFA on my bank accounts plus code words. (I changed to a different one for each entity after a tour Dachau.)
It sounds like in the scenario you describe, we should give that 12 year old a job, rather than invent ever creative ways to punish them for not wanting to be a low level minimum wage customer service representative because from ages 12 to 18ish they responded to adults like an adult would, while they weren't thankful the kid only acted out electronically in cheeky, playful ways.
Nobody said it was illegal, but a disproportionate response is not likely to go over well with other people here. Whether that is a problem depends on whether you are trying to get along with other people, so will leave that for you to decide.
I literally just warned you that's not the case. Even if the FBI doesn't prosecute, you can respond physically[0], but I was more speaking in the context of someone hacking wifi, where they're in close physical proximity, not the other parent's example of a remote attack.
(That's why you hack... because you can do it remotely.)
For context, I had a neighbor literally hack a speaker I was using to do personal, private calls, protected by PA's 2 party consent state.
I don't like when people invade my privacy, repeatedly, then do a shocked Pikachu[1] when the result is to respond like an Appalachian with multiple degrees and ten years of policy experience paired with the skills of a woodsman trained by the Boy Scouts just before they went bankrupt.
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/307ece16-38cb-11e4-9526-00144feab...
Was that part not clear?