3 ms·

Except that I didn’t leave the doors open. Someone I trusted with the keys, left them in their safe. Unlocked. So I rather have their whole place burned down an

by rytis 6y ago

Except that I didn’t leave the doors open. Someone I trusted with the keys, left them in their safe. Unlocked. So I rather have their whole place burned down and MY keys melted at the same time.

gwright 6y ago
You are suggesting that it was just "keys" but that isn't the case here. You don't know what type of data is being destroyed. A better example might be a storage unit service that left the front gate unlocked. If someone torches the place to illustrate that they need better security would you be comfortable with that? Isn't there a better approach that we should encourage or is OK to encourage people to destroy things that aren't protected to teach people "lessons"?
- rytis 6y ago
  Maybe. However, if this was my diary or photoalbum, bank statements, medical reports or anything of that sort I’d rather have them destroyed than knowing that they may have been copied... The lesson is not for the people, it’s for the companies that take shortcuts to save money. It for the MBA’s that think things don’t have to be properly engineered.
  - gwright 6y ago
    So you are rationalizing a crime because it teaches companies a lesson? That is a crazy rejection of the rule of law. Would you be comfortable in applying that logic to all crimes?
    - smichel17 6y ago
      I'm not gp, but let's take a step back for a sec. (I've mostly lived in the northeastern US) I live in a small (~20k population) rural technically-city (but... it's a town) where crime is not much of an issue; my car sits unlocked in my driveway and I seldom lock my house -- when I do, it's almost always when I'm at home (alone) -- it's about a feeling of security, not any real risk of a break-in. I've lived this way in this town for many years and have never experienced a robbery. I think it's pretty low risk, not irresponsible. I've also lived in a larger city. There, I absolutely locked my doors. And I've traveled to tourist-y locations known for pickpockets, and kept an even closer watch on my belongings. The internet is two orders of magnitude larger than the world's largest city and policing it is exceptionally difficult, since it spans national borders. There will be crime. I wish this weren't the case. I much prefer living in a safe place where I don't have to worry about locking my doors when I go out. But when crime is common, it's negligent not to protect against it.
      - gwright 6y ago
        I agree with all that and I also don't want to let the perpetrator off the hook. In your example, doesn't matter if the crime happens in a place where it is uncommon or not, it is still a crime and we shouldn't excuse the perpetrator by suggesting that the victim needed to be taught a lesson.

by rytis 6y ago

Except that I didn’t leave the doors open. Someone I trusted with the keys, left them in their safe. Unlocked. So I rather have their whole place burned down and MY keys melted at the same time.

gwright 6y ago

You are suggesting that it was just "keys" but that isn't the case here. You don't know what type of data is being destroyed. A better example might be a storage unit service that left the front gate unlocked. If someone torches the place to illustrate that they need better security would you be comfortable with that? Isn't there a better approach that we should encourage or is OK to encourage people to destroy things that aren't protected to teach people "lessons"?

rytis 6y ago
Maybe. However, if this was my diary or photoalbum, bank statements, medical reports or anything of that sort I’d rather have them destroyed than knowing that they may have been copied... The lesson is not for the people, it’s for the companies that take shortcuts to save money. It for the MBA’s that think things don’t have to be properly engineered.
- gwright 6y ago
  So you are rationalizing a crime because it teaches companies a lesson? That is a crazy rejection of the rule of law. Would you be comfortable in applying that logic to all crimes?
  - smichel17 6y ago
    I'm not gp, but let's take a step back for a sec. (I've mostly lived in the northeastern US) I live in a small (~20k population) rural technically-city (but... it's a town) where crime is not much of an issue; my car sits unlocked in my driveway and I seldom lock my house -- when I do, it's almost always when I'm at home (alone) -- it's about a feeling of security, not any real risk of a break-in. I've lived this way in this town for many years and have never experienced a robbery. I think it's pretty low risk, not irresponsible. I've also lived in a larger city. There, I absolutely locked my doors. And I've traveled to tourist-y locations known for pickpockets, and kept an even closer watch on my belongings. The internet is two orders of magnitude larger than the world's largest city and policing it is exceptionally difficult, since it spans national borders. There will be crime. I wish this weren't the case. I much prefer living in a safe place where I don't have to worry about locking my doors when I go out. But when crime is common, it's negligent not to protect against it.
    - gwright 6y ago
      I agree with all that and I also don't want to let the perpetrator off the hook. In your example, doesn't matter if the crime happens in a place where it is uncommon or not, it is still a crime and we shouldn't excuse the perpetrator by suggesting that the victim needed to be taught a lesson.