You are, quite simply, wrong on this account. > Are Hackers criminals? Yes, because the law says they are. You seem to be implying that "hackers are bad becau

You are, quite simply, wrong on this account. > Are Hackers criminals? Yes, because the law says they are. You seem to be implying that "hackers are bad because the law says they are". No, crackers, specifically, are bad because they act in bad faith and they can cause serious problems for people and organizations. We, as a society, codified that into law. If there were no laws, they would still be "bad". > Does that matter? Not much outside the realm of law. Yes, it does matter. The law was made for a reason. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't have the law in the first place. You might disagree with the reason the law was made, but even if you do, it mattered for the majority of people, so you're in the minority (not in an "underdog" kind of way, but in the "the earth is flat" kind of way of being a minority). > If I send you a series of electrical pulses and that causes your systems to do something stupid, that's your problem. Yes, but that's not where the story ends. It's also my family's problem. It may be my friends' problem as well. It might become a problem for all my contacts. It might even be a problem for my company. It might be a problem for the suppliers of my company. It might be a problem for their clients too. It may even become YOUR problem. That's just thinking of 1 person. What if, by some miracle, the US Treasury gets hacked? Or the DHS? 328 million people have a new problem now So we collectively got together we said that my problem could really quickly become everyone's problem and we said we'll start addressing it by making laws that say "hacking other people is bad". Then you come around and you're like "boo hoo I don't think causing problems for other people is a big deal. They should just deal with it". Well, you're wrong, sir, and I hope you see why you also come across as a bit of an asshole. > You are not a "victim" Yes, you are. By definition of the word "victim". > Most people disagree with me Well there's your first clue, Sherlock. > Most people disagree with me, but their abstraction is leaking, because even they agree with me on a fundamental level, they just don't know it What does a leaky abstraction have to do with people disagreeing with you, but then somehow unknowingly agreeing with you on some fundamental level?