I said the fault lies with the administrators of those systems, not with attackers. I really think I never said it should be legal or illegal. I don’t really care if it is illegal or not, hackers are not dettered by the legality of it. Do you think someone in The Gambia cares that hacking is illegal in Canada?
> You are unable or unwilling to engage with the question if and why using a computer and "smarts" to cause harm is different from using strength
For me being smart and being strong are two wildly different things. It is like asking me why I don’t compare apples to oranges. I can’t.
> In any case, that's a very interesting position. I'm curious what you gain from arguing it. Where does that come from? It's possible you're just trolling, but maybe smarts and brains connected via networks are truly special to you. Why?
I am not trolling. I see this, hacking and securing something against hacking, as an “intellectual fight”.
Let’s say you are a 50 year old security admin that gets owned by a 14 year old with a computer. You were beat because the 14 year old one was smarter than you, not that he had more experience or was physically stronger than you. Just smarter.
Now imagine you’re part of a security team and you still get owned. What does that say about you?
I am at a loss on how to explain that when it comes to computer security the fault, in my book, does not lie with the hacker.
Just like when a flaw is found and exploited I do not blame the one who found it, but whoever made it possible in the first place. And in the case that the flaw was patched and a software update was made available, but it was not installed promptly, then the fault lies with whoever did not update the system.
Regarding arguing: I made a statement expressing my position and got mobbed for it. Now I am defending my position.
We can agree to disagree and keep enjoying what is left of our weekends.