> the general public neither knows nor cares.

Exactly. The general public does not care about tedious technical things you can do. Nor should they. Spoofing your MAC address simply isn't interesting to other people.

> People attacking that which they do not understand is just as old as recorded history. I'll take that phenomenon as just an axiom of human behaviour.

This is sad cynicism. In general, people don't just arbitrarily attack things they don't understand. And people certainly don't attack things they don't care about. You kind of have to care about something in order to put in the effort to attack it.

People certainly care about hacking, why do you think it is in the movies so much? What people don't care about is an accurate portrayal of hacking.

The problem occurs when people are trying to make ethical calls in a context outside of hollywood movies. Any string of technobable sounds insidious to them; writers (quite reasonably) use this to their advantage to reduce the amount of research they need to do, but prosecutors also use it to their advantage.

> You kind of have to care about something in order to put in the effort to attack it.

Yeah, and that something they care about is "ze evil haxxors". They care about a topic they have absolutely no technical insight into.

You're conflating a number of separate issues. Sure, people care about "hacking". That doesn't mean that the general public automatically attacks anyone accused of hacking. More to the point, is there some evidence that the general public considers MAC spoofing to be hacking? Most people don't know what MAC spoofing is, and don't care. Sure, if you can convince someone that MAC spoofing is hacking, then you might be able to convince them to care, but first you have to convince them that it's hacking.

> Any string of technobable sounds insidious to them; writers (quite reasonably) use this to their advantage to reduce the amount of research they need to do, but prosecutors also use it to their advantage.

Any string of technobabble sounds like technobabble to the average person. It makes no sense to them, by design. That doesn't mean they automatically consider it evil or hacking. Writers use this to their advantage because they know they can assign whatever meaning they want to the technobabble by using appropriate framing. Now a prosecutor might well stand up and spout a bunch of technobabble and then say "that's hacking". The defense needs to stand up and explain why that's stupid.

A prosecutor in a medical malpractice trial could also stand up and describe a heart bypass surgery using medical terms and then announce that the doctor is clearly responsible for the patient's death. It would be pure medical babble to the typical jury, and without accurate context, the jury could indeed be led to believe that the doctors actions were negligent or even malicious, despite them being standard procedure. The defense needs to step up and provide context for those terms that the jury doesn't understand. (The judge also needs to step up and not allow the prosecution to intentionally mislead.) The jury here isn't attacking the doctor, though. They're making a judgement based on the information they are provided.

You seem to not understand how fiction works.

When all the spinning 3d shit appears on the movie screen, the audience does not automatically think "hacking". But they do think that once the movie tells them it is hacking. (Of course audience members have come to expect certain depictions to be described as hacking) If you spew technobabble at a layman and tell them that you are rehashing a microwave oven, they'll believe you, even though that makes no sense. When a prosecutor spews technobabble about graphology, the layman is going to think it is evidence, not because when they hear the technobabble they think "hard evidence" but because when the prosecutor spews it and calls it evidence, they think "evidence".

When a prosecutor spews what seems to be nonsense about MAC addresses, and calls it leet illegal hacks, do you really think that the layman is going to sit there and second guess that assessment? Really?

The general public cares about illegal hacking. The general public has no idea what illegal hacking looks like. When the general public is shown something alien to them, and then told it is illegal hacking, you would be insane to think they would not react in fear of it.

If they understood the subject matter, they would act rationally even if they did not understand the particulars; for example, if they understand the basic premises of medicine. Now, if you had a surgeon describe the familiar (say an appendectomy) in unfamilar detailed medical jargon, your standard layman is going to be a hell of a lot more stressed out over the procedure. Why? Because the unfamilar frightens.

Being persuaded by technical jargon is not the same thing as simply attacking someone for having technical skills, as was the original implication.

And for better or worse, juries are tasked all the time with coming to conclusions in problem domains that might be beyond their understanding. This is not unique to the technical realm nor is it a new phenomenon. A jury in a complex insurance or securities dispute is going to need things explained to them just as much as in a computer hacking case. Indeed, I'd argue it's much easier to explain to someone what MAC address spoofing is than to explain to them what the LIBOR manipulation entailed.

Maybe or maybe not, but jumping to that conclusion without any other evidence is certainly self-aggrandizing.

There is plenty of evidence for both aspects of his statement for him to say it with confidence in public discourse. We he saying something that you don't disagree with, I doubt you would be demanding a higher grade of evidence.