It appears the guy he hacked was not chosen at random. So why was he chosen? If you start something like Project Honeypot and then Cloudflare does that sugges

It appears the guy he hacked was not chosen at random. So why was he chosen? If you start something like Project Honeypot and then Cloudflare does that suggest you want to play "good guys, bad guys"? It's very subjective stuff. Is that sort of "business model" inviting trouble? Not to imply there are no "bad guys" on the web - of course there are - but who would want to play with them? "Good guys?" The social engineering stuff is disturbing. It makes you not want to sign up for anything online, not even web mail. But when you run websites that purport to label internet users as "good" or "bad" based on spurious evidence and numerous inferences, are you not opening yourself up to even more attention from "bad guys"? Is it possible to run an internet business without messing around with these types of characters? Honest question. As for your question, marquis, I think it's simple psychology: If you go online and assert "You can't hack me" or "Our system is hack-proof" to an audience that includes people like the teenager in the story, then it's perceived as a challenge. And as we continue to see, both of those assertions continue to be false. The Wired stories always follow the same plot: In the end, the teenager is arrested, but the damage has already been done.