My only issue when it comes with examples of "strictest interpretation" is that people like to lie and delude themselves and pretend that some things aren't what they are.

You know, if ACT is hacking, because it accesses Square's info without their consent then it should be accept that it's hacking. People shouldn't be butchering the language and lying to compensate for the fact that like ACT. I think they should just own up to it. If it's hacking--admit that it's hacking, but also admit that it's hacking on such a minute level that it's inconsequential.

But if it is hacking, and someone says it's not, and thus ignores how language works--then they're lying. And if someone is willing to lie out of bias then that just pisses me off. (I support damage meters. I just don't want folks lying on the internet).