[adbge]

> There is no distinction between you and an "actual" attacker. You seem to have labored within a nimbus of self-righteous nerd egotism that someone more criminally minded might not have...

That sounds exactly like a distinction to me. A fireman would break into a house to save a child. A burglar would break into a house to steal valuables. One intends harm, the other doesn't.

> did so not by the means most efficient or effective, but the means readily available and most likely to satisfy your urge to feel superior to your fellow man.

There's no such thing as true altruism. Why he did it isn't relevant. People feel good about doing good deeds. Sure, they say "I want to help people," but they really mean something more along the lines of "I want to feel good about myself."

Further, why would it be necessary for him to choose the most effective or efficient means? He owes these people nothing.

> There is no security problem for which "exploit the problem to harass strangers in coffee shops" is the solution.

Maybe not the best or even a good solution, but it's certainly still one. ;)

[GHFigs]

One intends harm, the other doesn't.

...but then...

Why he did it isn't relevant.

I am at least as uncertain as to what your position is as you are. Also...

He owes these people nothing.

Nothing, of course, except the common courtesy of not violating their privacy. Yes, even in New York.