4 ms·
I mean, the blame is somewhat shared. Blaming the perpetrator only helps so much. It's reactionary. It's similar to the reason you get insurance before bad thin
by ecnahc515 8y ago
I mean, the blame is somewhat shared. Blaming the perpetrator only helps so much. It's reactionary. It's similar to the reason you get insurance before bad things happen, not after. You can blame perpetrators all you want, but you still need to protect yourself.
- sgolestane 8y agoSo it's my fault if someone steals a package from my porch?
- flukus 8y agoNo, but if you borrow my stuff and it gets stolen off your porch then you're also to blame because you didn't protect it responsibly.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoMorally? No. It's the thief's fault, and the thief's fault only. But if you know that people steal packages off of porches in your neighborhood, and you leave a package out there for weeks, you're at least being pretty unwise. You're not morally at fault, but pragmatically, yes, you kind of are. [Edit: That is, your actions are not well-suited for the kind of world that we actually live in, and that you know that we live in.]
- timClicks 8y agoNot your fault in a moral sense, but it certainly is in a causal sense. You could have set up a different causal chain that would have prevented the theft. Of course that doesn't mean that society can't blame (and punish) the thief.
- Varcht 8y agoIf a package is taken from a porch and there is no Ring camera to record it did it make a noise?
- threeseed 8y agoWhat we are actually talking about is you putting your valuables in a safe within your alarmed house and a professional thief breaking in and stealing it. Because the thief previously worked at the safe company and implemented a backdoor in the design. You want to explain how you defend against that ?
- nickpsecurity 8y agoWhat we're actually talking about, if we consider security evaluations and ratings, is to... 1. Put valuables in a low-rated safe whose door opener is network accessible and itself low-rated. 2. Whose alarms suck at identifying and responding to actual breaches by even the most common methods. 3. A thief breaking in who uses the most common methods that the safemaker or company didn't try to stop. They did spend a fortune on unrelated stuff. 4. Various designs and implementations that weren't using methods that often prevent or detect backdoor attempts in favor of methods that let backdoors slip through. Also, this is a company that makes billions in profits a year. They have the money to both develop and build highly-secure systems, including safes. They keep not doing that or not using what high-security they build. They keep using low-security stuff year after year after year. They could defend against those problems by doing more of what works and not using low-rated, often-vulnerable stuff for protecting secrets. Just a hunch on my part. ;)
- dx87 8y agoWe don't know how the companies were compromised, so we have no way of knowing if they were capable of protecting themselves. A state sponsored attacker has effectively unlimited resources, so at the end of the day, the company would go bankrupt trying to protect themselves against every concievable attack. It's one thing if they were negligent, but just saying that they should have protected themselves better is like blaming an Iraqi company for not protecting itself from being blown up by the USA. Some threats are just too large for you to protect against.