Okay, so forget the word felony. "You would have aided/abetted a malicious criminal and profited monetarily by doing so?" My point is that selling an exploit doesn't become morally okay just because the company doesn't offer a bounty.
Re:Multiple Vulnerabilities in Pocket
by forgotmypassw on Tuesday August 18, 2015 @11:57AM
(#10079885)
Except that morality is highly subjective and some people would be completely fine commiting a criminal activity just for the hell of it.
You say it's subjective and then the reason you give is that some people would, knowing that it's criminal, still commit a crime.
It looks like their view of the activity isn't that it's fine to do, rather that they don't care that it's not fine. This implies that they know and accept that it's not fine.
Re:Multiple Vulnerabilities in Pocket
by enlightenedfool on Tuesday August 18, 2015 @12:25PM
(#10080093)
I don't know what to say after reading this. Did the act come into force after BP spill?
That word has lost all weight, right along with "terrorist".