Hacker News Reader

Comment by lilyball | Hacker News Reader

> So, out of concern for the condition of any items that may still be inside, I snooped around the perimeter looking for a way in

How does concern for the items inside lead you to looking for a way to break in?

View on HN

They didn't say they intended to break in, they said they looked to see if there was a way to break in. If they could see a way, then so could anyone else, which would suggest that they aren't being protected. No actual ingress needed to come to that conclusion.

That's my maximally charitable take, at any rate.

Question to see if they’re not being neglected? It wouldn’t be the first financially failed museum that thinks just letting the building fall into disrepair is a cheap way of getting rid of their collection.

if the building is unguarded and full of valuable items, someone will loot it. if you're the one that loots it, you get to decide what happens to them. if you don't, someone else will

I love HN morality takes.

I’m sorry but that’s a terrible take

> Someone else might loot it, and they could do who knows what with it, so I’ll loot it instead

it's obviously self-serving and can be used to justify just about any act

Bad take, unsolicited pentesting can be a net positive without being exploitative.

it can be used to justify good acts too, not just bad ones

Shhh, you said the quiet part out loud!

National Treasure 3: Relics of the Silicon Valley

in this case it's a relic of boston tho

Eeeeh, I think there is a more good-faith take on the events. My personal take is that they were just trying to do the meatspace equivalent of a bug bounty, without even attempting to touch or take any items.

Kinda like how, typically, you would be incliner to file user bugs and report any vulnerabilities you find in a product you care about. Despite having zero monetary incentive to do so (more often than not).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com