3 ms·

> It's not whether it's bad for someone to commit this crime, it's whether Twitter should be held liable for such poor security practices that a 17 year old can

> It's not whether it's bad for someone to commit this crime, it's whether Twitter should be held liable for such poor security practices that a 17 year old can hack them. That is exactly my point. There are tons of crimes that basically anyone can do. If you said instead: people whose houses are set on fire by an arsonist should be liable for poor security, at the very least you'd not be taken very seriously. There is a duty to not commit crime. There is no duty to avoid being the victim of a crime. On top of that, there is broad industry consensus that it is largely impossible to write bug free software - certainly at the scale of Twitter. To suggest that they have the duty perform the impossible strikes me as deeply irresponsible if not simply malicious.

etrabroline 6y ago
>There is no duty to avoid being the victim of a crime If you entrust a bank with 10 thousand dollars, and the bank puts your money in a paper bag and leaves it in the lobby, they are going to be held liable if someone walks away with it. Twitter letting teenagers steal people's data is approaching that level of negligence for a mutli-billion dollar company.
- Google234 6y ago
  The only thing between the inside of a home and the outside is a thin layer of glass. Should we hold home owners responsible for people breaking in and stealing? Lots of things are fragile, we have a laws to act as a deterrent to violations
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    We do in some cases. Someone breaks in and steals your stuff? We generally don't care, because its solely your problem. Someone breaks in and steals other people's stuff that you held, or stuff that's dangerous to others? Depending on what it was, you may be held liable if you didn't take appropriate measures. If the stolen stuff was, for example, sensitive private information, and you didn't have it in at least a locked cabinet, you may be liable. If it was a gun, in many jurisdictions, you're liable. Your car gets stolen _because you didn't secure it correctly?_ In Germany, you're liable for the damage caused with it!
- bobmaxup 6y ago
  I don't think the fact that the person is a teenager really bears any significance as to how negligent a company is. Historically teenagers have done massive damage as sole actors in numerous roles.
unethical_ban 6y ago
You are incorrect - there is a legal concept known as strict liability that defines an instance where one party is completely liable for damages to a party, regardless of the negligence of any other party. I am sure Twitter didn't run afoul of that concept here, but the question is, "should they?" Presumably, a skilled person with only a few years' experience was able to find a flaw in their system so severe, that multiple political and business leaders' accounts were manipulated. It's a dangerous embarrassment.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
> There is no duty to avoid being the victim of a crime. In Germany (and likely also other jurisdictions), if your car gets stolen because you left the door open and the keys in the ignition, you will be held liable for it to some extent: As the owner of a dangerous machine, you're responsible to reasonably secure it even against illegal acts. [1] I don't see why this would be different if your machine is a lot bigger, and as a result arguably a lot more dangerous than a single car (imagine tweets trying to trigger violent mobs). [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVG/7.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVG/7.html subsection 3

etrabroline 6y ago

>There is no duty to avoid being the victim of a crime If you entrust a bank with 10 thousand dollars, and the bank puts your money in a paper bag and leaves it in the lobby, they are going to be held liable if someone walks away with it. Twitter letting teenagers steal people's data is approaching that level of negligence for a mutli-billion dollar company.

Google234 6y ago
The only thing between the inside of a home and the outside is a thin layer of glass. Should we hold home owners responsible for people breaking in and stealing? Lots of things are fragile, we have a laws to act as a deterrent to violations
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  We do in some cases. Someone breaks in and steals your stuff? We generally don't care, because its solely your problem. Someone breaks in and steals other people's stuff that you held, or stuff that's dangerous to others? Depending on what it was, you may be held liable if you didn't take appropriate measures. If the stolen stuff was, for example, sensitive private information, and you didn't have it in at least a locked cabinet, you may be liable. If it was a gun, in many jurisdictions, you're liable. Your car gets stolen _because you didn't secure it correctly?_ In Germany, you're liable for the damage caused with it!
bobmaxup 6y ago
I don't think the fact that the person is a teenager really bears any significance as to how negligent a company is. Historically teenagers have done massive damage as sole actors in numerous roles.

unethical_ban 6y ago

You are incorrect - there is a legal concept known as strict liability that defines an instance where one party is completely liable for damages to a party, regardless of the negligence of any other party. I am sure Twitter didn't run afoul of that concept here, but the question is, "should they?" Presumably, a skilled person with only a few years' experience was able to find a flaw in their system so severe, that multiple political and business leaders' accounts were manipulated. It's a dangerous embarrassment.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

> There is no duty to avoid being the victim of a crime. In Germany (and likely also other jurisdictions), if your car gets stolen because you left the door open and the keys in the ignition, you will be held liable for it to some extent: As the owner of a dangerous machine, you're responsible to reasonably secure it even against illegal acts. [1] I don't see why this would be different if your machine is a lot bigger, and as a result arguably a lot more dangerous than a single car (imagine tweets trying to trigger violent mobs). [1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVG/7.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVG/7.html subsection 3