Comment by scbrg

Why are you asking me? I'm not even arguing that the attack was wrong.

I just challenged your - IMO incorrect - suggestion that it's reasonable to assume that no devices would spread to anyone other than the original owner.

If there's such a thing as acceptable collateral damage, the attack may still be reasonable. I'm even leaning towards the opinion that it is.

It's possible to consider the downsides of something without being opposed to it.