I don’t think that is either legally, or morally, true.
Sure, it would be better if devices weren’t broken by attack attempts, but if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding?
Sure, it would be better if devices weren’t broken by attack attempts, but if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding?
Morally? A bit grey, but often when you dig into the details for the cases of businesses unlike individuals, it is a resounding "Yes".
Legally? Depends on the jurisdiction I suppose.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/22/austr...
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
This is for data breaches, but similar laws exists for all sort of conduct related to negligence in securing and adequately protecting privacy, safety, health, and so on.
Yes?
It is by definition an attack, a hostile action, something that should not be done.
Is it wise to harden systems to withstand attacks? Of course.
But when an attack works you don't victim blame. You use knowledge of how it worked to harden your systems better.
Literally anyone can do this with an MCU of some type and a 50 cent device. Bluetooth, RF, NFC, etc. This just makes is a nice little convenient package.
There is victim blaming and there is practicality.
A pacemaker that can't withstand random radio bursts is useless, as the first time you walk down the street you are dead.
So unless you are going to ban any sort of microcontroller, and very well documented and simple circuit designs, this is still not victim blaming.
Generally speaking pacemakers aren’t failing from random radio signals, but if they fail if you specifically attack them, it’s your fault.
Just like anything else, it's just a tool, and because a tool can do bad things doesn't mean the tool should be illegal.