if you had a smart door, with a known vulnerability that has been reported, but the manufacturer says it not their problem. i then walk past, notice your door

if you had a smart door, with a known vulnerability that has been reported, but the manufacturer says it not their problem. i then walk past, notice your door and the vulnerability, and then slide a note through your door explaining the vulnerability and how to fix it. you would be out of your mind to cry foul. Felix didn't encourage a crime, come on, act your age. just because you blindly hate someone doesn't mean you can twist their words without getting called out. i'll be the first to say that he's no saint, but he's way better than the average trash that floats around on the internet. doing charity fund raisers that are worth donating to, calling out abusive personal and companies, being the genuine face of a massive community he never asked to represent. Computer Misuse Act 1990 (1)A person is guilty of an offence if— -(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured]. -(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and -(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. i don't believe using a google program to send out code to any device with the open ports falls under any of these, as the code didn't secure access to any program or data held, and wasn't malicious. as he wasn't securing access, he doesn't fall foul of these laws. as the bug had already been reported to google chrome, and they had stated it was user error, supplying the user with the means to fix it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.