3 ms·

> Does reasonable steps imply "prevent all bad actors in all cases"? of course not, that's an incredibly uncharitable reading of "reasonable", not even an inte

> Does reasonable steps imply "prevent all bad actors in all cases"? of course not, that's an incredibly uncharitable reading of "reasonable", not even an intelligence agency would set such an impossible standard. keep in mind this whole thread started with a comment about "what if your brother googles something bad as a prank?" I'm literally just talking about setting a password that isn't "password" and locking the computer when you walk away from it. this will protect you from attacks by the vast majority of schoolchildren. if a child can't prevent their friends from misusing their school account, they really shouldn't have one. I'm not sure why this is considered snide or controversial at all.

munmaek 7y ago
Because this argument is tone deaf and ignores that kids are, well, kids. Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids, and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here. These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon them.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  even in school, it's actually kind of important that students don't let each other trivially access their accounts. if someone logs into your account and bullies a classmate or copies your work, "I left it unlocked in the cafeteria" can't be an acceptable excuse. > Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids, and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here. > These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon them. this is my point. I'm not holding the kids to any standard; I'm just saying this is a fundamental precondition to being entrusted with an account at an organization. if it's not reasonable to expect this of them, the school should not be issuing computers/accounts. the ultimate responsibility absolutely lies with the school.
  - lovich 7y ago
    I understand your statement after explanation but in your original post you said >if it's unreasonable to expect a child to clear this bar, then they are not yet responsible enough to be entrusted with their own computing device. There is no English interpretation of this that comes across as you saying it's the schools responsibility. It 100% sounds like you put the onus on the children

munmaek 7y ago

Because this argument is tone deaf and ignores that kids are, well, kids. Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids, and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here. These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon them.

leetcrew 7y ago
even in school, it's actually kind of important that students don't let each other trivially access their accounts. if someone logs into your account and bullies a classmate or copies your work, "I left it unlocked in the cafeteria" can't be an acceptable excuse. > Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids, and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here. > These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon them. this is my point. I'm not holding the kids to any standard; I'm just saying this is a fundamental precondition to being entrusted with an account at an organization. if it's not reasonable to expect this of them, the school should not be issuing computers/accounts. the ultimate responsibility absolutely lies with the school.
- lovich 7y ago
  I understand your statement after explanation but in your original post you said >if it's unreasonable to expect a child to clear this bar, then they are not yet responsible enough to be entrusted with their own computing device. There is no English interpretation of this that comes across as you saying it's the schools responsibility. It 100% sounds like you put the onus on the children