4 ms·

I'm sorry, but in between your Straw Man argument and your indirect Ad Hominem attack, I fail to see you address the point that these kids caused harm to a busi

I'm sorry, but in between your Straw Man argument and your indirect Ad Hominem attack, I fail to see you address the point that these kids caused harm to a business. Nowhere did I say that PHPFog bears no responsibility for the security of their service, but that doesn't excuse what these kids did one bit. I'm just much more impressed with the way that PHPFog is handling their business after the fact than these kids are. Nowhere did I suggest that these kids lives should be destroyed, however I do believe they most definitely need to be held accountable for their actions. PHPFog will be held accountable for their actions by whether or not businesses decide to do business with them going forward. Both parties bear responsibility, and it's absurd to think otherwise.

parfe 16y ago
>I fail to see you address the point that these kids caused harm to a business Very well. These kids caused harm to a business. So what's that change? The business screwed up, badly. The agent of destruction is quite irrelevant. Had it been a power failure, backup failure, permissions failure, data leak, or data corruption would PHPFog deserve any less blame? This need to shift some responsibility to a bunch of kids is nauseating. >I'm just much more impressed with the way that PHPFog is handling their business after the fact than these kids are. This is another example of the weird HN mentality when it comes to companies "apologizing" (Like WakeMate blaming their Chinese manufacturer for flunky power supplies). Are you actually impressed that a corporation has better PR than a bunch of children? Does that even make sense to you? I'd be impressed if they had managed to actually apologize while accepting all the blame without trying to pawn off the responsibility for their mistakes on some kids.
- lambda 16y ago
  > This need to shift some responsibility to a bunch of kids is nauseating. They aren't shifting responsibility. The kids are responsible for their own actions. They did something illegal. They are responsible for it. Now, PHPFog is also responsible for protecting their customers; they are supposed to provide a secure hosting environment. PHPFog is a victim here, but has also acted irresponsibly with regards to security (not criminally irresponsibly, but if harm did come to their customers due to this, there could be possible civil liability). The fact that PHPFog bears some blame for their security practices doesn't take responsibility off the kids who broke in and vandalized their systems.
  - parfe 16y ago
    >They aren't shifting responsibility Yes PHPFog is. The only reason these kids are even mentioned in the blog post is to shift blame. Their part in the post serves no other purpose. The entire event could have been recounted without a single personification of the hackers in the blog post.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - lambda 16y ago
      No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system! Without them, none of this would have happened. There's no shifting of responsibility, since the kids who vandalized their system are responsible for their vandalism. I can't honestly imagine what kind of moral system you have in which you don't believe that criminals are responsible for their own actions. If someone breaks into your home, is it your locksmith's fault, or the police's fault, or your alarm company's fault? No, it's the fault of the person who broke into your home. Perhaps one of the other parties mentioned was negligent, or perhaps not negligent but they could improve their security practices (install stronger locks, upgrade your alarm system, do more patrols in your neighborhood), but it's still the fault of the person who broke in and vandalized your home.
      - parfe 16y ago
        >No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system! "They" are not relevant in any way! "They" are tabloid meat for an internet drama. "They" are a distraction from the fact that a hosting company had piss poor security surrounding the core product. The entire story could be told without mentioning the hackers by name, or providing any biographical information. The only reason to include them is to distract from the real issue. Replace "16 year old" with Russian, Chinese etc. Yes, vandals are bad. That's not exactly in question. In question is the sheer gall of PHPFog to shift blame to some kids to try and cover their embarrassment. I think the blog post should be rewritten. Instead any mentions of the hackers should be completely neutral. Then it will be PHPFog getting out there and taking responsibility for their mistakes. No distraction. No hand waving. And no tabloid drama.

parfe 16y ago

>I fail to see you address the point that these kids caused harm to a business Very well. These kids caused harm to a business. So what's that change? The business screwed up, badly. The agent of destruction is quite irrelevant. Had it been a power failure, backup failure, permissions failure, data leak, or data corruption would PHPFog deserve any less blame? This need to shift some responsibility to a bunch of kids is nauseating. >I'm just much more impressed with the way that PHPFog is handling their business after the fact than these kids are. This is another example of the weird HN mentality when it comes to companies "apologizing" (Like WakeMate blaming their Chinese manufacturer for flunky power supplies). Are you actually impressed that a corporation has better PR than a bunch of children? Does that even make sense to you? I'd be impressed if they had managed to actually apologize while accepting all the blame without trying to pawn off the responsibility for their mistakes on some kids.

lambda 16y ago
> This need to shift some responsibility to a bunch of kids is nauseating. They aren't shifting responsibility. The kids are responsible for their own actions. They did something illegal. They are responsible for it. Now, PHPFog is also responsible for protecting their customers; they are supposed to provide a secure hosting environment. PHPFog is a victim here, but has also acted irresponsibly with regards to security (not criminally irresponsibly, but if harm did come to their customers due to this, there could be possible civil liability). The fact that PHPFog bears some blame for their security practices doesn't take responsibility off the kids who broke in and vandalized their systems.
- parfe 16y ago
  >They aren't shifting responsibility Yes PHPFog is. The only reason these kids are even mentioned in the blog post is to shift blame. Their part in the post serves no other purpose. The entire event could have been recounted without a single personification of the hackers in the blog post.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - lambda 16y ago
    No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system! Without them, none of this would have happened. There's no shifting of responsibility, since the kids who vandalized their system are responsible for their vandalism. I can't honestly imagine what kind of moral system you have in which you don't believe that criminals are responsible for their own actions. If someone breaks into your home, is it your locksmith's fault, or the police's fault, or your alarm company's fault? No, it's the fault of the person who broke into your home. Perhaps one of the other parties mentioned was negligent, or perhaps not negligent but they could improve their security practices (install stronger locks, upgrade your alarm system, do more patrols in your neighborhood), but it's still the fault of the person who broke in and vandalized your home.
    - parfe 16y ago
      >No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system! "They" are not relevant in any way! "They" are tabloid meat for an internet drama. "They" are a distraction from the fact that a hosting company had piss poor security surrounding the core product. The entire story could be told without mentioning the hackers by name, or providing any biographical information. The only reason to include them is to distract from the real issue. Replace "16 year old" with Russian, Chinese etc. Yes, vandals are bad. That's not exactly in question. In question is the sheer gall of PHPFog to shift blame to some kids to try and cover their embarrassment. I think the blog post should be rewritten. Instead any mentions of the hackers should be completely neutral. Then it will be PHPFog getting out there and taking responsibility for their mistakes. No distraction. No hand waving. And no tabloid drama.