|
No, no, no. The point of my essay is that most hackers are too ethical to hack into even the most poorly-secured system or network, unless they've been paid to do a penetration test or vulnerability assessment, by the system's/network's rightful owners. Most real hackers are too smart and too ethical to behave otherwise, in my experience.
To say "unsecured sites deserve to be hacked" is naive, immature, and unethical -- the police don't care, particularly, whether the person you mugged was 200 lbs and heavily armed, or 130 lbs and helpless. But the poster you're responding too isn't really saying otherwise -- I think the point instead is that like it or not, we need to pay attention to security, regardless of who we think the attackers are likely to be.
Also, we've still got some vocabulary-confusion, here. As I said in the essay, hacking is bigger than penetration-testing and virus proof-of-concept code; it's a mindset, a culture, and an approach to problem-solving, of which computer security is only a subset. (I know, most people don't know or care about this distinction, but the title of the essay is "Fear and Loathing in Information Security," NOT "Fear and Loathing in the Mainstream Media & Popular Consciousness.")
|