There is a difference.
If the server is locked down and not meant to be public, then it's the digital equivalent of breaking and entering.
If you're talking about exploiting public open source software like an ETH smart contract, that's more like the digital equivalent of picking up a wallet off the ground and keeping it.
If a server is connected to the internet then some data must enter into it. What data? That is defined by the rules of the software running on that server. If you send data and the server accepts it, you're playing by the rules.
Are you trying to hack a server?
Nevertheless, I agree with your viewpoint. People hack Ethereum protocols all the time, that's how it was written right? Code is law.
I think by having IRL police being the backstop for code bugs we've made devs lazy. We need better infrastructure to secure our things on the internet, not pay police to catch internet thieves(doesn't work because thieves have better security).
Logically yes, legally in most jurisdiction no.
Not legally the same. One is an attack on a concept, the decentralized protocol, the other is on an asset owned by an individual (or org). The CFAA prohibits unauthorized access to an individual’s or company’s computers or systems. Blockchain / protocol vulnerabilities can be exploited without the unauthorized access
