Someone who is a serial killer for a given amount of time, as a function of quantity, will not only kill fewer people but spend less time killing people, than someone who spends the exact same amount of time in total employed as an assassin. That's an extreme example, and that's deliberate; feel free to dial it back from there. The point is that people who do things generally regarded as atrocious for personal reasons do so, on average, quite infrequently as compared to those who do things that are functionally identical only because they want the money. Curiously and however ironically, the latter also have a higher tendency towards getting away with it.
So, in effect:
Is the most prolific hacker of all time some for-profit company whose operation is perfectly legal (first red flag), and who distributes ostensibly legitimate software for free even though the development thereof is inherently expensive (second red flag), and/or who exposes ostensibly legitimate services to the public for free even though the uptime thereof is inherently expensive (third red flag), and none of which qualifies as a violation the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, technically, by definition (fourth red flag)?
Is that a rhetorical question (and here's your fifth, pun intended)?
#Google #Meta #ByteDance #OpenAI #Microsoft #Apple #Amazon