Re:VNC Roulette
by ctpide on Saturday March 26, 2016 @11:31PM
(#11368742)
Pretty sure theft is still theft, even if the door was unlocked. Of course negligence can make it your fault, but even if you find a million dollars on the street - legally - it's not yours.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:VNC Roulette
by colejohnson66 on Sunday March 27, 2016 @12:39AM
(#11368900)
Sure, but when Target, LinkedIn, et. al. are hacked, why don't people blame them for poor security practices? It's always the "hacker's" fault. Sure, it's wrong to exploit those weaknesses, but so is robbing an unlocked store. The hacker (robber) is still wrong, but only in the physical world do people put some blame on the "hackee" (store).
This blame is shared.
When I get robbed: the robber hurt me, and I failed to protect myself. Failing to protect myself is not a social problem.
When my bank gets robbed: the robber hurt me and the bank, and the bank failed to protect me. The robber is at fault, and the bank is at fault for breaking it's promise to me. That's a social problem.
Sure, but when Target, LinkedIn, et. al. are hacked, why don't people blame them for poor security practices?
Security is hard. Blaming the victim of a hack is pointless because usually you have no idea whether they did something wrong or if they were the target of a particularly clever attacker.
Maybe when the victim isnt a billionaire organization that is true.
In the case of these large corps being hacked, they are 100% responsible, and most of them we do know how they got hacked; its usually through very humdrum (if organized) means.
100% responsible? The hackers that hacked them have no blame whatsoever?
Re:VNC Roulette
by colejohnson66 on Sunday March 27, 2016 @04:46PM
(#11371489)
Sure, but when you find plain text passwords or unencrypted credit card info (two of the basics of starting ANY business), victim blaming seems warranted.