wiktionary has two definitions for „phishing“, whereas the first one is equivalent to your definition and the second one is
The act of circumventing security with an alias.
While I am generally in favor of the definition you cite (because of the etymology of phishing (fishing and phreaking), being „to lure for something/find something“ (fishing) combined with phreaking, „to fake“ or „to spoof“, there is an important point to keep in mind:
Language is, as unpleasant as that might be, how it’s used.
If people choose to use a word with that meaning, it might become prevalent. Another even worse example is „literally“ which has recently been defined to mean „virtually“, which is literally the opposite of that.
Language has to adapt to what people try to mean by words they are using - and all users have to comply to that, even if it sometimes is pointless (as phreaking and spoofing already mean what phishing turns to mean).
We‘re loosing some accuracy here and do not follow Kurt Tucholsky‘s
language is a weapon, we should keep it sharp
But this seems to become the consensus.
And there is a point in time where the maybe less educated people (not knowing phreaking or spoofing) reach consensus that phishing means just that. There is just no point in being angry or frustrated.
Whenever the main stream media touches our field of work (or any specialized field of work, really), there are sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle misunderstandings, wrong words are used and language does get less powerful because two things that are not the same are used with wrong meanings and sometimes said to be the same.
There are lots of those situations, but in the end: it doesn’t matter. The industry knows what phishing is and as long as the industry can use it correctly, the consensus of the masses is not that important.