That depends on your intent. If you purposefully send the pulses in order to cause damage, that would generally be considered a crime.
It's like saying no, I didn't shoot that person, I just gave momentum to a bullet that caused their body to do something stupid and they died.
I think these reductionistic arguments are naive. It is the information and intent that matters. Many times racist and sexist harassment only consists of “making pressure changes in the air with vocal cords.” However, those pressure waves have meaning(words) and there is intent behind them, so we condemn that behavior.
> Are Hackers criminals? Yes, because the law says they are.
You seem to be implying that "hackers are bad because the law says they are".
No, crackers, specifically, are bad because they act in bad faith and they can cause serious problems for people and organizations. We, as a society, codified that into law. If there were no laws, they would still be "bad".
> Does that matter? Not much outside the realm of law.
Yes, it does matter. The law was made for a reason. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't have the law in the first place. You might disagree with the reason the law was made, but even if you do, it mattered for the majority of people, so you're in the minority (not in an "underdog" kind of way, but in the "the earth is flat" kind of way of being a minority).
> If I send you a series of electrical pulses and that causes your systems to do something stupid, that's your problem.
Yes, but that's not where the story ends. It's also my family's problem. It may be my friends' problem as well. It might become a problem for all my contacts. It might even be a problem for my company. It might be a problem for the suppliers of my company. It might be a problem for their clients too. It may even become YOUR problem.
That's just thinking of 1 person. What if, by some miracle, the US Treasury gets hacked? Or the DHS? 328 million people have a new problem now
So we collectively got together we said that my problem could really quickly become everyone's problem and we said we'll start addressing it by making laws that say "hacking other people is bad".
Then you come around and you're like "boo hoo I don't think causing problems for other people is a big deal. They should just deal with it". Well, you're wrong, sir, and I hope you see why you also come across as a bit of an asshole.
> You are not a "victim"
Yes, you are. By definition of the word "victim".
> Most people disagree with me
Well there's your first clue, Sherlock.
> Most people disagree with me, but their abstraction is leaking, because even they agree with me on a fundamental level, they just don't know it
What does a leaky abstraction have to do with people disagreeing with you, but then somehow unknowingly agreeing with you on some fundamental level?
The legal system does not work very well for international crime.
'I don't think assault should be illegal. If I send a series of simple kinetic impacts to someone's unprotected body that causes their organs to do something stupid, that's their problem. They are not a "victim."'
Do you see how absurd this idea sounds?
In my opinion there are good reasons for physical property to exist (individual freedom), but avoiding violence is not the best theoretical argument for it.
Is physical property against freedom or in favor of freedom? I think both, depending how you look at it. I've though about this a lot, and tend to fall on the side of proprietarianism, because I think property is absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of human needs and desires.
I don't think hacking/cracking should be illegal. If I send you a series of electrical pulses and that causes your systems to do something stupid, that's your problem. You are not a "victim".
Laws against physical violence and against stealing physical objects have good reasons to exist, because otherwise there would be no point in having any moral conception at all, because everyone would solve their problems through violence.
On the other hand, sending messages through a wire doesn't have good reasons to be outlawed. We could live peacefully sending each other all sorts of bytes, and each entity would make an effort for their own systems to behave correctly.
Most people disagree with me, but their abstraction is leaking, because even they agree with me on a fundamental level, they just don't know it. The moral discussion is so disconnected from concrete actions and formal definitions that it devolves into dumb analogies like "but if you left your door open blah blah".
Having a "right not to be hacked" is of the same nature as having a "right not to be offended".