5 ms·
> At which point that's just the cycle of karma closing the loop, no? You misunderstand. No one cares about Alice's personal life, karma, or happiness. All t
by 394549 8y ago
> At which point that's just the cycle of karma closing the loop, no?
You misunderstand. No one cares about Alice's personal life, karma, or happiness. All they care about is manipulating Alice and what a manipulated Alice might do. Alice's desire to hide her cheating from her spouse could lead Bob's trade secrets to getting stolen. Bob did nothing wrong here to have his "cycle of karma closing the loop."
- scottlegrand2 8y agoNever give Alice your passwords and always have a lock code on your cell phone. Anything else is a moral hazard in my opinion. Bob is complicit in this case IMO. If my spouse were to attempt to extract data from my work laptop she would run smack-dab into my password. If on the other hand Bob has extracted highly confidential data onto a freely available machine, then Bob is not only complicit, Bob is culpable. Don't be Bob. If we take this further and Bob's employer made it that easy to extract highly confidential data then they are their own worst enemy. For example, if a foolish Google employee attempts to stalk an ex-partners confidential data from within Google, they will be terminated and escorted out of the building within 60 minutes. Be like Google here.
- nyolfen 8y agoi read the example as alice being an employee of bob, not a spouse
- 394549 8y agoYou misunderstand again. Bob isn't Alice's spouse, he's Alice's employer. Bob legitimately gave Alice access to confidential information in order to do her job. But, unknown to him (unless he intrusively investigated her personal life), Alice could be blackmailed into abusing that access because she cheated on her spouse. Bob isn't "complicit" or "culpable" he's a victim. I think you're overconfident in simple security measures and have a poor understanding of human security threats.