However much i praise car analogies as they can be very useful for explaining less qualified people what the gist of the matter is. Something i deem to be a good thing. The use of such analogies however doubles as a open invitation for mass deceit as your vandalism comparison points out.
This debate requires nuance, something that is totally gone as soon as you numb it down to cheap analogies. Vandalism can't be compared to unauthorized access without absurd conclusions to be drawn. Yet, let's be kind and follow your narrative - which is the status quo one.
An even better car analogy in this particular case would someone breaking into your house.
Unauthorized access to your house to be exact.
In order to achieve this unauthorized access to your house - several modus operandi could be used.
(1) Open Doors. ( No Damage at all. )
(2) Lockpicks. ( No Damage at all. )
(3) Copied keys ( No damage at all. )
(4) Bump Keys. ( Damage visible for experts. )
(5) Kicking the door with bruteforce. ( Visible damage. )
(6) Crowbars. ( Clearly visible. )
(7) Small shaped Explosive charges. ( Much damage. )
(8) A hijacked public transport bus. ( Excessive damage with collateral. )
Note: _Only_ mentioning MO directed at the physical "security" mechanism.
The unauthorized access to your house could have been committed with various motives.
Where i live, even the ( Church of dutch ) Police does unauthorized access to private homes in order to persuade people into securing their houses better.
The unauthorized access could have been committed by someone who;
A: Is hungry, and was able to see your food in the kitchen.
B: Was payed to scare you.
C: Noticed that your house if full of luxury due to your bragging in the pub.
D Is a professional burglar who found out that you were on vacation via social media scanners.
E: Noticed a fire on your second floor, and desires to see if he could save children, animals or you.
F: Knows you, and decides you deserve it for whatever reason.
G: Has the legal right to acquire your goods because you did not pay your bills.
H: Was simply tempted because of curiosity
I: Simply lost his or her keys and shares the front door.
J: Is a political activist for proper house security policy.
I could list a _plethora_ of things that could happen after a combination of 1 to 8 and A to J.
All of it would most probably be judged differently unless someone using copied keys for saving the children would be just as bad as someone using a public transport bus for unauthorized accessing your house with the aims to simply scare you for money.
@Staffan Johansson
However much i praise car analogies as they can be very useful for explaining less qualified people what the gist of the matter is. Something i deem to be a good thing. The use of such analogies however doubles as a open invitation for mass deceit as your vandalism comparison points out.
This debate requires nuance, something that is totally gone as soon as you numb it down to cheap analogies. Vandalism can't be compared to unauthorized access without absurd conclusions to be drawn. Yet, let's be kind and follow your narrative - which is the status quo one.
An even better car analogy in this particular case would someone breaking into your house.
Unauthorized access to your house to be exact.
In order to achieve this unauthorized access to your house - several modus operandi could be used.
(1) Open Doors. ( No Damage at all. )
(2) Lockpicks. ( No Damage at all. )
(3) Copied keys ( No damage at all. )
(4) Bump Keys. ( Damage visible for experts. )
(5) Kicking the door with bruteforce. ( Visible damage. )
(6) Crowbars. ( Clearly visible. )
(7) Small shaped Explosive charges. ( Much damage. )
(8) A hijacked public transport bus. ( Excessive damage with collateral. )
Note: _Only_ mentioning MO directed at the physical "security" mechanism.
The unauthorized access to your house could have been committed with various motives.
Where i live, even the ( Church of dutch ) Police does unauthorized access to private homes in order to persuade people into securing their houses better.
The unauthorized access could have been committed by someone who;
A: Is hungry, and was able to see your food in the kitchen.
B: Was payed to scare you.
C: Noticed that your house if full of luxury due to your bragging in the pub.
D Is a professional burglar who found out that you were on vacation via social media scanners.
E: Noticed a fire on your second floor, and desires to see if he could save children, animals or you.
F: Knows you, and decides you deserve it for whatever reason.
G: Has the legal right to acquire your goods because you did not pay your bills.
H: Was simply tempted because of curiosity
I: Simply lost his or her keys and shares the front door.
J: Is a political activist for proper house security policy.
I could list a _plethora_ of things that could happen after a combination of 1 to 8 and A to J.
All of it would most probably be judged differently unless someone using copied keys for saving the children would be just as bad as someone using a public transport bus for unauthorized accessing your house with the aims to simply scare you for money.