More like, if you don't put locks on your doors, maybe no one should insure you and maybe the cops shouldn't waste their time when you couldn't be bothered to even take symbolic action to protect yourself.

How dare you! I put a note on the door that says that all unauthorized persons are forbidden from entering the house.

This analogy fails when you consider the complexities in securing a sprawling IT architecture for a massive corporation compared to putting a lock on a door.

Companies like Yahoo did try to secure themselves. They were just really bad at it.

The point of the analogy is that casual negligence of even the most basic security procedures should have built-in consequences... for the negligent party.

Consequences, yes. But the parent poster was suggesting the culpability should fall on the victim, not the attacker, which is just ridiculous.

They should be fined for negligence, but that doesn't mean the attacker is somehow morally right in any way.

Culpability can be shared, in the real world.

Sure, but when it comes to blame the bulk should still belong to the intruder.

Hacking is not the same as robbing. Hacker doesn't take anything away from you, except some reputation.

I don't understand the point your trying to make. In most recent high-profile hacking cases, hackers stole customer information (including credit card numbers) from the businesses. The financial fall-out for those customers could be much worse than a physical robbery.

Stealing money can be robbing, I agree.

But (this is unrelated matter) why is it possible to steal someone's money just by copying several short numbers? We have all kinds of advanced cryptography today but some payment systems still rely on transistor era technologies.

And even worse, companies can track customers using CC numbers. That is wrong too. The shop should not get your name or other unique identifier when you just buy something with a card.

They didn't steal money, they stole information which could be used to get money. What you're saying is equivalent to, "They stole the design for our car's master ignition key, but since they didn't steal an actual key or a car, no harm no foul." It's not the same as stealing a car, but it's also clearly about stealing cars.

If they're taking password from users (and maybe even other data like Credit Card numbers - regardless of the security failures of the site), they are taking something from you

Blaming the victim is easy.

I'd say that depends on the hack. The hacks just for prestige aren't really that prevalent any more.

These days it's hack for stealing creds or money or secrets or perhaps just putting ransomeware on all the comapanies systems to get a bitcoin payment out of them...

Even for prestige, is it ok for gang members to break and enter properties, even if they don't anything, for prestige? I suspect not so the same should apply.

Money, lost business, customer data are valuable things and hardly nothing.