Another's negligence does not justify being an asshole!
If Mrs. Smith was running a bric-a-brac store and didn't know how to secure her display cases, then it's alright to shoplift from her?
If Mrs. Smith was holding a big party at her house, then it's alright for a party goer to steal her life savings?
If I hand a firearm disguised as a jelly donut to a random bystander, then they shoot someone with it, it's their fault and not mine?
Amazon messed up. It doesn't justify Weev's action. He could've just told them. Deception and malicious intent are markings of crime or antisocial behavior. That's just common sense!
Guh. Here we are, about 3 steps into an argument, and already it's a quagmire of complexity, grey areas and sliding scales. I could now posit the example that it's actually more like Mrs Smith leaving the money in a bag on the floor of her store (or house) but seriously we could go on like this forever. My Infinite Biased Analogy Generator is in good working order and I can tell yours is in full effect also.
The fact is, nothing was stolen and no-one died. You're all about "intent" so intend this: this whole story is one guy exploiting Amazon's flawed security to annoy gay people.
I do not even like Weev. This is nothing but principle, namely - should the government be papering, with the full force of the law, over the cracks in Amazon's security?
I say, "no". You say "yes". We are each convinced of our righteousness. Let's leave it there.
Uh, no you see the danger and are trying to weasel out of it by pleading "oh noes, the greys," but, "Mrs Smith leaving the money in a bag on the floor of her store," pretty much breaks the back of your argument.
Someone absconding with that bag is stealing. Period. They didn't pay for that bag, why are they leaving the store with it? The thief is wrong. Nothing grey about that.
The problem here is that Weev's intent was to deceive and have a particular group's books effectively censored. This fits in with Amazon's Terms of Use? I don't think so. There is no grey area. If Weev wanted to improve the world with his hacking, there are tons of ways he could've done this without hurting anyone (reduced income), deceiving anyone, or running afoul of the TOS.
Prediction: if you go any further, your analogy generator is just going to illuminate how far you have to grasp for straws. (And I'll also note that I have been careful to construct relevant analogies, usually 2 or 3 at a time, picking the best fit. Also, your feedback in the discussion has resulted in iteratively more damning analogies.)
If Mrs. Smith was running a bric-a-brac store and didn't know how to secure her display cases, then it's alright to shoplift from her?
If Mrs. Smith was holding a big party at her house, then it's alright for a party goer to steal her life savings?
If I hand a firearm disguised as a jelly donut to a random bystander, then they shoot someone with it, it's their fault and not mine?
Amazon messed up. It doesn't justify Weev's action. He could've just told them. Deception and malicious intent are markings of crime or antisocial behavior. That's just common sense!