Re:YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure ...
by diminoten on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @05:34PM
(#20349056)
Wait, "Not at all"? Yes, it very much is, what you just said is literally the explanation I would give if someone asked me to explain why a front door lock is a legislative protection, not an actual security feature...
Legislation meaning you don't need to defend against it is actually quite real in meat space (and quite effective), so pretending like it's universally a bad idea is incongruous with your own facts.
Not at all. Short of building a fortress, you won't stop someone determined to get inside, but you can make it sufficiently difficult that they're more likely to be noticed, or more likely to seek out an easier alternative.
> it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...
Nobody is suggesting otherwise; rather, the issue is that legislating against something doesn't stop it from happening, and therefore you do still need to secure against it as part of your threat model.
Furthermore, laws tend to paint with a very broad brush; changing a number in a URL isn't "hacking", for instance. Laws should work with technical measures. Climbing a fence makes it much more obvious that you're trespassing.