3 ms·
If this sticks it will be a scary precedent. I agree, Amazon should have required 2FA for anyone with a Ring system, but should they really be legally liable?
by fenwick67 7y ago
If this sticks it will be a scary precedent.
I agree, Amazon should have required 2FA for anyone with a Ring system, but should they really be legally liable? Basically anything without 2FA is "vulnerable" to credential-stuffing.
This feels like suing a home builder because burglars can break the windows.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoYes, you should be held civilly (and perhaps criminally) liable when you create an insecure corporate surveillance apparatus. This isn’t Pinterest or Instagram for comparison.
- perl4ever 7y agoHome builders don't have you sign an agreement that says you are responsible for break-ins. It doesn't seem to be necessary. If this is all sensible and normal and rational and the victims' fault, why is there an agreement with everything electronic that says the user is responsible if anything goes wrong and the service provider is not? We should just outlaw that and go back to that misty land of yore - the default legal environment - and see what it is like. It can't be that bad. I'm sick of people complaining about the "legacy" legal system when it's been essentially eliminated for ordinary people. Maybe we should try it again.