breaching

That's only if the goal is to stop the water from breaching the land, though.

Exaggeration obviously, but if the data is in someones possession there are a lot of things that can be done with it without overtly breaching any agreement.

Many others also consider the long-term negative consequences of breaching contracts to be worse than short-term positive consequences.

First things first, it depends if you care about breaching the Terms of Service of your ISP.

S breaching so the tool would have to deal with them the right way, and through the right channels.

Even ten years later, it's always fun to see the submarine[1] breaching the surface on Hacker News.

Sure you can put bars on the windows, but it's not cost effective to protect against shaped charge wall breaching.

Many consider breaking promises to be wrong and contracts to be promises, and so consider breaching contracts to be immoral.

This should specify the user breaching the Terms as it reads, currently, it seems to include if Spoken breaches their own Terms.

If they consider short-term thinking at the cost of the long-term to be immoral, they would consider breaching contracts to be immoral.

It's begun breaching the low 5 figures and seems to be only going up.

If not, nothing to really stop an attacker breaching that like the fappening.

It's a bit naive to simply say "the onus is on the engineer", as if no engineer could be tricked by social engineering into seriously breaching policy.

(And the newly started company would be breaching the contract as well, if it was written to exclude that.) That's at least a significantly higher bar than "the highest bidder can do whatever they want with the data", which is the current state of things.

Breaching electronic systems can happen on the server or client (conversations around the latter are noticeably absent from arguments by e-voting proponents).