Well, in this analogy the problem starts with how the person is noticing the lock can be broken in unexpected ways
Everything you said after that is a valid continuation from that, but the scope of the issue I am talking to centers around that how.
Because locks have never actually been unbreakable, right? The main purpose of a lock, the generally accepted way that the lock keeps people out - is by existing, not by being strong.
We have higher standards for the lock in more serious applications, like a vault, but if you buy a vault door, put it in your garage, and begin testing it for vulnerabilities- I feel like it's reasonable to view that as criminal. I admit 100% that it could be a curious tinkerer, but I do not think it is unreasonable to tell the tinkerer that they can't do that without permission.
Everything you said after that is a valid continuation from that, but the scope of the issue I am talking to centers around that how.
Because locks have never actually been unbreakable, right? The main purpose of a lock, the generally accepted way that the lock keeps people out - is by existing, not by being strong.
We have higher standards for the lock in more serious applications, like a vault, but if you buy a vault door, put it in your garage, and begin testing it for vulnerabilities- I feel like it's reasonable to view that as criminal. I admit 100% that it could be a curious tinkerer, but I do not think it is unreasonable to tell the tinkerer that they can't do that without permission.