You're right, we're not using the same definition. That doesn't mean I don't have a point.

Of course. I guess I'm not clear what your point is though.

My point is that you must treat intrusions as an inevitability when trying to counteract intrusion. And anyone who builds a sandcastle should be aware of the ocean. The kid's breaking into this account is embarrassing.

Just because we can hold individual humans accountable (and should) doesn't mean we shouldn't have the perspective of "CONSTANT VIGILANCE."

Still, does that really hold up?

Certainly should have to treat intrusions as inevitable in designing the system, but there still is responsibility on the part of the intruder.

I lock my door because I consider it inevitable that someone will eventually try and break in. However, if someone does break into and vandalize my apartment, I sure as hell would consider them responsible and not consider in an act of God.

You seem to be implying that since PHPFog should have defending against this, that what the teenagers did is perfectly acceptable.

I never claimed it was acceptable. Only that it was irrelevant. Why should anyone besides PHPFog's lawyer and the kids' parents care? It's because PHPFog chose to play PR guru and throw the drama into their postmortem as a distraction.

Does it matter to you if some kid in Australia is brought up on charges? No?

Does it matter to you if a hosting company is competent in securing their servers? Yes?

Any discussion of who did the hack servers no purpose other than to distract from the only issue that matters to anyone which is PHPFog's security.