The media would have a field day and say that he hacked his school database. It's crazy how so many institutions are doing the digital equivalent of leaving an unlocked car in a bad neighbourhood and no one holds them accountable. Most people understand the concept of an unlocked car, not many understand that he didn't do anything special to hack his school db. He just strolled right in.
> he didn't do anything special to hack... Someone who snatched a purse out the hand of someone else isn’t “doing anything special” either. The illegality doesn’t hinge on the difficulty of the action. Why is that so hard to grasp for technical crowds? If you find a car with the keys in the ignition and the door unlocked, you won’t get away with driving it a block down the road by telling the judge: “Oh, but it was o…
Because laws concerning actual theft are objectively defined, and are logically consistent with themselves and other laws.
Laws about 'hacking', where the crime is simply a message, not a physical action, are extremely subjective. It revolves around intent more than the action.
For example: If a user goes to the website of theirbank.com and the root page is a list with all the credit card numbers of all the clients. Is he committing a crime? He used computers to get information that he shouldn't be allowed to see. Most people would say: no, he only wanted to visit the website.
If I see that the bank's API has no security, am I committing a crime?
If I use SQL injection to see all the users data, am I committing a crime?
Most people would say that it depends on intent, but intent is extremely subjective, and IMO a pretty bad way to define laws.