It depends on what you hack, doesn't it? If your hack causes physical harm, it is a physically violent act. You wouldn't say that someone firing a gun didn't commit a physically violent act just because all they did was pull a trigger.

There must be a distinction between:

1. Actions that are physically violent

2. Actions that cause physical harm, but the action itself is not physically violent

If 1 and 2 were the same, it would imply that voting for a politician that decides to kill people is just as bad as killing people yourself. The consequences of that wouldn't be good.

> You wouldn't say that someone firing a gun didn't commit a physically violent act just because all they did was pull a trigger.

If the gun is their property, it's their fault that their property is attacking someone. It's not pulling the trigger that's wrong, its that their property attacked someone else. Same idea applies to killer robots.

If the gun is not their property, then it's their fault that they used someone else's property.

If you reasonably know that the politician would murder someone then you absolutely are equally bad if you vote for them

Arson is not physically violent by this nonsensical distinction. It's just a chemical reaction that spreads on its own.

If you hacked with the intention of harming/killing persons then it sure is violent act as the intent matters. Obviously in that particular case hackers did not really want to physically harm.

Attacking hospital, including machines handling life support is still a violent act.

I see no real moral difference between arson and launching ransomware attacks.

The only difference I see is that hacking is always premeditated, making this a much worse instance of murder by definition.