3 ms·
They were informed by the victims that they made an error and proceeded anyways. Their inability to route that information to the right person should not be a
by cwkoss 6y ago
They were informed by the victims that they made an error and proceeded anyways.
Their inability to route that information to the right person should not be a valid defense or else incompetence becomes a business advantage.
- BeefWellington 6y ago> Their inability to route that information to the right person should not be a valid defense or else incompetence becomes a business advantage. I don't mean to sound trite but hasn't it pretty much been proven to be already? Look at things like the Equifax situation. A competent team performing security reviews and fixing and maintaining things would cost money. Repeat for N data breaches. And that's just software security -- it doesn't consider even more serious cases like those of infrastructure failures (bridge collapses, levee failures, dams breaking etc.) that have more important consequences. I agree with what I believe was the main point you were making which is that SEGA should not be excused here. I just think businesses have come to view competence as being expensive and so it's optional, and that this seems to be somewhat okay with people until it directly affects them.
- cwkoss 6y agoYeah, SEGA is inevitably going to argue that the left hand didn't know what the right hand had received from the victims. In a just court, that argument would be thrown out. But courts aren't always just, unfortunately.
- yellowapple 6y agoAnd so we now have a legal framework such that the Shaggy Defense is valid and effective. What a time to be alive.