But it didn't come across a warning. "You need to stop" is a demand not a warning. And I would like to believe they would know this when post online. if not /shrug.
Maybe they're working on behalf of an organization, a country that doesn't follow CFAA; Russia, China? Maybe they're state sponsored or under protection. They're obviously not stupid if they can infiltrate Fast-Food chains and social engineer others but I've been wrong before.
> is a bad idea
I would be surprised if they didn't. If not, okay well if shit hits the fan; no sympathy for me. Unlucky. They're doing it at their own risk.
> Isn’t it better that hackers today have a way to find real vulnerabilities without going to jail?
A doubled edged sword, I personally wouldn't count them as hackers. They're not hacking, they're penetrating based on T&C of an agreement. Yes, it could be called "ethical hacking" but I still wouldn't call it hacking.
A hacker is one who gains unauthorized access to computer. Hacking isn't such when your granted restricted access on a basis of T&C.
> Isn’t it better that hackers today have a way to find real vulnerabilities without going to jail?
I don't disagree, if that's your skill then go for it. It's the safest route allowing you to harness your skills, and which may provide future prospects. A dispensary selling drugs is better than the dealer on the corner of the street.
"To hack a bank" is different then to "hack a bank based on some agreement". One carries more weight then the other. Your penetrating a bank on an agreement. Your not hacking.
Bug bounty hunters to have faced jail, lawsuits, or threats — even when acting in good faith, it doesn't make you invulnerable.
I admire the persona of who this is, their acts highlights concern to us who use such conveniences. It exposes truth and tackles the issue at hand where others may exploit you because of. It shows negative light to corporations that many folk who daily.
Their title as on their blog "Ethical Hacker" I would say suitable to describe them as that. It's not like they're siphoning money off folk from ransomware.
> Most of what you’re saying just seems like nostalgia talking.
What I was demonstrating as someone who's been in trouble due to misunderstanding computer mishaps as a teen back when, also to establish my point that I know what I am talking about.
Yeah, it turned in to a nostalgia trip. I'd call myself more of a script kiddie and one who I'd see myself as white-hat.
Black-hat can be interesting however my moral compass has caught up with me and that my life has more worth that it would be jeopardous to do such besides I don't have the time and among other things.
But it didn't come across a warning. "You need to stop" is a demand not a warning. And I would like to believe they would know this when post online. if not /shrug.
Maybe they're working on behalf of an organization, a country that doesn't follow CFAA; Russia, China? Maybe they're state sponsored or under protection. They're obviously not stupid if they can infiltrate Fast-Food chains and social engineer others but I've been wrong before.
> is a bad idea
I would be surprised if they didn't. If not, okay well if shit hits the fan; no sympathy for me. Unlucky. They're doing it at their own risk.
> Isn’t it better that hackers today have a way to find real vulnerabilities without going to jail?
A doubled edged sword, I personally wouldn't count them as hackers. They're not hacking, they're penetrating based on T&C of an agreement. Yes, it could be called "ethical hacking" but I still wouldn't call it hacking.
A hacker is one who gains unauthorized access to computer. Hacking isn't such when your granted restricted access on a basis of T&C.
> Isn’t it better that hackers today have a way to find real vulnerabilities without going to jail?
I don't disagree, if that's your skill then go for it. It's the safest route allowing you to harness your skills, and which may provide future prospects. A dispensary selling drugs is better than the dealer on the corner of the street.
"To hack a bank" is different then to "hack a bank based on some agreement". One carries more weight then the other. Your penetrating a bank on an agreement. Your not hacking.
Bug bounty hunters to have faced jail, lawsuits, or threats — even when acting in good faith, it doesn't make you invulnerable.
I admire the persona of who this is, their acts highlights concern to us who use such conveniences. It exposes truth and tackles the issue at hand where others may exploit you because of. It shows negative light to corporations that many folk who daily.
Their title as on their blog "Ethical Hacker" I would say suitable to describe them as that. It's not like they're siphoning money off folk from ransomware.
> Most of what you’re saying just seems like nostalgia talking.
What I was demonstrating as someone who's been in trouble due to misunderstanding computer mishaps as a teen back when, also to establish my point that I know what I am talking about.
Yeah, it turned in to a nostalgia trip. I'd call myself more of a script kiddie and one who I'd see myself as white-hat.
Black-hat can be interesting however my moral compass has caught up with me and that my life has more worth that it would be jeopardous to do such besides I don't have the time and among other things.