So if you steal something it means the owner didn’t do a good job securing it and if you murder someone they didn’t do a good job protecting themselves?
The diff is that owner is responsible for their own shit where a telco has everyone's things in there and is exposed to the whole world instead of just one street.
It is like a bank that has sloppy security and exposes you to the whole world, including adversaries from Russia china NK etc.
Things like Telco cloud banks should absolutely be thrashed for having bad security. Responsible disclosure should also be a thing but we all know these companies sue people for that too.
Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"?
Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the hack caused real damage and suffering? For example, people's medical histories get stolen and exposed? Ransomware encrypts hospital systems, disrupting medical care?
Or, the inverse: while you're away, somebody breaks into your home non-destructively, takes some photos, sleeps on your couch, and leaves. Should that be forbidden? Your fault for allowing it? It is easier to pull something like this in the digital world, is that why it seems different to you?
I don't agree with GP at all, but making hacking illegal indeed gives companies a false sense of security.
Making burglaries illegal is a real way of preventing many burglaries from happening, because it puts people committing them in prison and deters some from doing it in the first place. This only works because the burglar is in the same place as the burglary, and so they can be arrested.
People with little to no computer experience apply the same standard to cybersecurity and treat foreign hackers the same way as burglars. Then they get surprised when the Russians hack them and the FBI does nothing.
So if you steal something it means the owner didn’t do a good job securing it and if you murder someone they didn’t do a good job protecting themselves?
What an absurd world view.
The diff is that owner is responsible for their own shit where a telco has everyone's things in there and is exposed to the whole world instead of just one street.
It is like a bank that has sloppy security and exposes you to the whole world, including adversaries from Russia china NK etc.
Things like Telco cloud banks should absolutely be thrashed for having bad security. Responsible disclosure should also be a thing but we all know these companies sue people for that too.
I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.
If your bank has shoddy software and a thief steals your money is that ok?
Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"?
Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the hack caused real damage and suffering? For example, people's medical histories get stolen and exposed? Ransomware encrypts hospital systems, disrupting medical care?
Or, the inverse: while you're away, somebody breaks into your home non-destructively, takes some photos, sleeps on your couch, and leaves. Should that be forbidden? Your fault for allowing it? It is easier to pull something like this in the digital world, is that why it seems different to you?
I don't agree with GP at all, but making hacking illegal indeed gives companies a false sense of security.
Making burglaries illegal is a real way of preventing many burglaries from happening, because it puts people committing them in prison and deters some from doing it in the first place. This only works because the burglar is in the same place as the burglary, and so they can be arrested.
People with little to no computer experience apply the same standard to cybersecurity and treat foreign hackers the same way as burglars. Then they get surprised when the Russians hack them and the FBI does nothing.
So you would be fine with someone clearing out your house, while you were away?
There is no door, that cannot be opened with enough effort. Part of what stops people trying, is the fear of consequences.
I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.
And most people do not have guards and dogs walking around the perimeter, but we still blame the burglars for breaking in their houses.
Maybe you should think through the consequences of living in a society where anything a person can do is allowed lmao
This is the epitome of the "blame the victim" culture.
When it comes to computers and software, yes. They need to do a better job not letting others screw them over.