1) don't put vital infrastructure where an attacker could get at it.
2) ignore that advice and then spend billions of dollars on security systems that are circumvented the day after they're released, complete with NSA-mandated backdoors...and wonder how the attackers kep getting in.
Whether homegrown solutions are better or not tends to depend on how bad the official IT is and who is doing the growing.
If the official IT guys are going around setting everybody's password to 'password' then almost any homegrown scheme will be superior -- even if it's just adding a number to the password against the IT department's orders.
Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned wrongly. Like most things in government, it works better in theory than practice.
But yes, even if he is a terrorist and absolutely guilty, he still has rights that the government cannot violate if they want to be able to successfully prosecute him.
The copyright owner charges $1,500 per performance license for that song.
But since the financial bligation ncurred that way would be a debt, you could offer payment in the form of 150,000 pennies. Refusing a legal tender payment of a debt discharges the debt in the amount of the offered legal tender payment..
The copyright maximalist lobby used the same tactics the anti-gun lobby is using today: take tiny steps that don't seem to advance your cause much, but in total get you to your goal so slowly no one notices.
And it works. Just look at the copyright MAFIAA, who have managed to completely reverse the purpose of copyright law, to the extent their own victims will defend them!
So what? No two people will ever honestly agree on what makes a given thing art. This is why the constitution protects artistic expression -- if you had to justify your art to 100% of the population for it to be art, there wouldn't ever be ANY art.
Even if 100% of the population besides the artist hates it, that's still not valid grounds to declare something to not be artistic expression.
Nobody ever needed a heavily protected right to say, do or depict exactly what everybody likes, after all.
The only natural laws are the right to fight to the death over resources and winner takes all. If a law is truly a natural one then you can observe two wild animals in a dispute over resources obeying it.
Every law other than that one is as artificial as any other. It's funny how people like to claim the right to ignore all but 'natural' laws -- and they always define laws that inconvenience them as not being 'natural' somehow.
Oddly enough, I've never seen two packs of wild dogs don three-piece suits and sue eachother over ownership of a dead cow, have you?
If simply discussing hacking is the same as actually doing it, then the DOJ would be unable to hold briefings or meetings internally to discuss hacking countermeasures without running afoul of the law...not that they'd ever hold themselves to the standards they apply to everyone else.
This whole 'prosecute the messenger' thing makes perfect sense when you consider that most companies are run by bureaucrats not engineers.
To an engineer, the objective is to build the best whatever possible. When someone points out a flaw, that person is a hero because then the engineer can fix the problem and make their product better.
To a bureaucrat, the objective is to cover his ass. Problems don't exist until someone reports them; In effect, the person reporting the problem didn't discover it, they created it where it did not exist before. And worse, the person it is reported to is now an accomplice to creating the problem unless they bury it so deep it will never be heard from again.
Given that very few engineers are the heads of companies, you get the absurdity playing itself out over and over, where companies go on the attack against anyone who points out a problem in one of their products or systems.