Re: slightly off topic - "break" a database

From: Mark Bole <makbo_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:25:12 GMT
Message-ID: <YKEPe.921$sV7.699@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>

DA Morgan wrote:

> Mark Bole wrote:
>

>> On the other hand, the colleague whose laptop was so totally 
>> vulnerable deserves some blame as well,

>
>
> Calling you on this.
>
> People who don't lock their doors deserve to have their houses robbed?
> People who carry cash in their wallets deserve to be mugged?
> People who don't drive around in armoured cars deserve to be shot?
> People who let their children play outside deserve to have them raped?
>
> Sorry Mark but that's total ....
>
> A civil society can not exist when the standard is "if I can figure out
> how to hurt you" then it is at least partially your fault.
>
> Please reconsider what you wrote.

Wow, that's quite some list of violent crimes.

The fact is, all the things you wrote do happen, even to "good people". Upon reconsideration, I still think that if a legally competent adult in our "civil society" doesn't take reasonable precautions, based on common knowledge, to protect themselves from harm, then yes, they are to some degree to blame. The source of the harm doesn't matter -- someone who doesnt' wear a helmet when motorcycling or who doesn't cook their meat before eating is also partially at fault for any harm they suffer as a result. And an employee who doesn't secure and backup their laptop computer is also to blame, something many companies have as an official policy.

I am not claiming that this in any way lessens the culpability of the harm-doer (fault in this case not being a fixed quantity). We haven't heard from the colleague who was allegedly harmed in this case, and there is always another side to the story. But I was in no way defending Bdbafh's actions, rather suggesting that an authorized and announced test of this nature would be OK (in fact, a good thing!), but not as a practical joke.

-Mark Bole Received on Fri Aug 26 2005 - 08:25:12 CDT