I suppose I'm seeing a difference between saying "software vendor" versus "software" in this case. I would guess it also depends on how one uses the term "allow". Typically I see that in this as defined as intentionally letting the hacker do as they wish with no attempt to prevent it. I can see that possibly what you may mean is that their potentially bad code gave an opening to the hacker to do as they wished.

Either way, they are still getting some of that blame. Whatever blame they don't get goes to the hacker. I fail to see an issue with this.

So, as to your tax analogy, I see it much the same way in terms of language. You see the loophole as a means to exploit the tax law, I'm assuming to imply they are doing something they should not be doing. But the word exploit has positive as well as negative meanings. You say they saw a loophole in the tax law and they exploited it in a negative way meaning it was unethical, immoral, and/or illegal. I say they saw a business opportunity and exploited it for the advantage of their company and shareholders, which is totally legal.

Which one of us is right? Don't know. Someone has to complain to proper channels and let a court of law determine the outcome. But considering that most laws go with the notion of innocent until proven guilty, we can only go with that the tax methods used are legal. Questionable? Yes, but legal.

> But the word exploit has positive as well as negative meanings.

This is the first I've heard anyone claiming that the word exploit can have a positive meaning.

>You say they saw a loophole in the tax law and they exploited it in a negative way meaning it was unethical, immoral, and/or illegal. I say they saw a business opportunity and exploited it for the advantage of their company and shareholders, which is totally legal.

How you characterize the action isn't important. What is important is that exploiting logic in a law for personal gain and exploiting logic in software for personal gain is exactly analogous. The "hacker" in both cases is equally morally culpable as in each case their exploit was an unintended consequence.

exploit: (noun) a striking or notable deed; feat; spirited or heroic act: the exploits of Alexander the Great.

exploit: (verb)

1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.

2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.

3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.

You'll notice that only one of those four is distinctly negative in nature. Two of them are distinctly positive. The final one can be seen either way depending on context.

Therefore, I totally disagree that "exploiting" tax laws for personal benefit can always be seen as a immoral, unethical, and/or illegal act.

Your hacker is exploiting things for personal gain that is likely already considered illegal. Someone labeled as a hacker can exploit software for their own personal gain in a manner that is not illegal, but you don't seem to be using that context.

The two do not necessarily match in context because the "exploiting" of the tax laws you are complaining about has not been deemed illegal. This "exploiting" of tax law may have unintended consequences but that's the fault of the people who wrote the law, not the ones who willingly follow it.

Well, you are certainly correct about exploit having neutral/positive meanings. But either way its a complete red herring.

I still feel you're intentionally evading the point here. The salient point is about the intention of the laws and the morality of circumventing intention. Circumventing the intent of the (justly applied) rules of a system is decidedly negative. This is why hacking is wrong (not because its illegal... really, everyone please stop citing laws as if they are the ultimate arbiter of truth) and this is why tax avoidance is wrong.

Well, every person / company of considerable means practices "tax avoidance," which basically means legal structuring of activities in such a way that they produce fewer tax obligations.

For example, waiting over a year to sell stocks so you pay long term rather than short term capital gains.

This is contrasted by "tax evasion," which is the illegal version of the same thing.

I know you're going to say, what Google is doing here is obviously wrong, not the same thing at all; and you're right, but a court has to draw the line somewhere, and it's very, very difficult to do so. Google has a variety of extremely highly paid professionals telling them they are on the correct side of that line, and so does every other large company, which is why so many of them employ these strategies.

In fact, I wonder how much more "moral" they could get without incurring legal action from shareholders over not taking advantage of permissible methods of tax avoidance!