mattwnz:

JWR:

freitasm: Of course there are many definitions of "hacking". One is the skills people use to develop programs (as in "hacking code" and "hacktons). The other applies to people who deeply understand how a system work and are capable of using it to the max (legal or illegal, for example phreaking). And lastly the one that is the mainstream (even though I don't agree) is someone using tricks, social engineering, system exploits to illegal access data.

Under these definitions, yes it was a hack. But I wouldn't classify it as a high end hacking - no deep exploits required, no social engineering applied to steal someone's password, no keylogger installed, etc.

So, it can sway both ways here.

I think the term 'Hacking' is meaningless now.

I would call it exploiting a security vulnerability.

The discovery of the vulnerability isn't the issue. It is what was done with the knowledge.

Also, too many analogies in this thread.

Analogy, is used to simplify something for easier understanding and not used to turn it into something else.

Too much something else.

Anyone who is 'exploiting a security vulnerability' though, would still be doing something illegal wouldn't they? Compare this to a house where a door has a faulty lock on it, where it doesn't lock. So even though the owner thinks they locked their front door, it doesn't mean that you can then go up to their house open the door and access their house, just because the door wasn't locked. Analogies are needed due to the medium, and in court they would also use analogies to get a clear understanding.