> Not the layman, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Are you not aware of content that is criminal to possess? Like CP is the most common example.

> I am not responsible for your actions.

I've already addressed this confusion of yours - this is NOT about your responsibility for someone else's actions, but about your own actions and whether they constitute a "hack".

> You are the only one using the term "hack" here. Please note that I had responded to your "limit/lack of authorization" phrasing. Nothing more.

Please open a dictionary for the word hack to understand this conversation! And note the word "authorization" in the definition.

> However that isn't what (I understood) us to be talking about - ie legal authorization

Understandably you're confused, the legal limit is your own making, authorization is way broader than that.

> I'll note the ambiguity of the term "hack" in this context

Exactly!!! Keep looking into the definition to resolve the ambiguity!

> You seem to be failing to clearly differentiate

No, your differentiation is wrong

▲

fc417fc802 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You realize we just went from (the legal equivalent of) "I accidentally mailed you my tax return" to "I accidentally mailed you a bomb". Like yeah, it remains illegal to retain possession of said bomb irrespective of the fact that someone intentionally sent it. That is ... not at all surprising?

Beyond that you're clearly just trolling at this point, going to great lengths to manufacture an argument about a term that I never used to begin with. "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.

▲

eviks 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That is ... not at all surprising?

For the 3rd time, this conversation is not about YOU and not about what surprises you!

> "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.

No, you've made up this limit to some "legal meaning" (also wrong here, large variety there as well but wouldn't want to endulge you further). Again, open up a dictionary on "hack", then follow the definition of "authorization" from there, if you only find "legal" in there, get a better dictionary, journalists / commenters are usually not lawyers, so they wouldn't accept your artificial legal limits on meaning!

▲

user_7832 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Beyond that you're clearly just trolling at this point

I think this is the greatest proof of the simultaneous validity of two different arguments. Disclaimer, I'm assuming (I think fairly) that you're in good faith.

The funny thing is, to me, the other commenter's arguments are quite clear/obvious to me and make sense. Not that your points are wrong - but... I'm 99% sure the other person isn't trolling in the slightest. Y'all are just talking across each other.

	▲	fc417fc802 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Y'all are just talking across each other. Initially, perhaps. However note that my attempts to clarify exactly that are repeatedly followed by misconstruing my position. It's not so much that we disagree as that the supposed disagreement is about things I never said. The repeated failure to respond to what was actually said coupled with the combative tone is pretty much the definition of trolling. Of course that term does assume intent to an extent - if he's just having a bad day I'm not sure that technically qualifies. The end result is the same though. BTW if you feel I've missed some insightful point of his do please elaborate.