News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private photos of up to 6.8M users. Parent comment

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by vbuwivbiu on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:12PM (#18683635)
the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by reaperducer on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:40PM (#18683900)
the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first

You misunderstand what "eye for an eye" means.

"Eye for an eye" means let the punishment fit the crime.

Before "eye for an eye" was established by religious texts, the common retaliation for poking someone's eye out was death.

"Eye for an eye" was a step towards a more civilized justice system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by vbuwivbiu on Friday December 14, 2018 @04:14PM (#18684839)
I use it in the context of Taleb's book, mentioned in the parent, wherein he discusses this - symmetrical risk
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by fhbdukfrh on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:32PM (#18683829)
Yes, this approach assumes universal parity in the result of the act, which is far from true. For example the leaked health records of a healthy individual are not as damaging as those of someone with a lifelong condition, yet both cases are very, very bad.
[ Parent | on HN ]