3 ms·
Your actual original point was: > It's not all that great blaming the victim. Which is what I was replying to. Of course this incident was inconsequential fo
by bildung 5y ago
Your actual original point was:
> It's not all that great blaming the victim.
Which is what I was replying to.
Of course this incident was inconsequential for Newsblur's customers. That in this case the impact for the customers was approx. zero doesn't change the relationship of Mongo+Docker <> Newsblur <> customers (i.e. who has responsibility and who feels the consequences, which defines who can be a victim), just the outcome for the customers.
- eganist 5y ago> Of course this incident was inconsequential for Newsblur's customers. That in this case the impact for the customers was approx. zero doesn't change the relationship of Mongo+Docker <> Newsblur <> customers (i.e. who has responsibility and who feels the consequences, which defines who can be a victim), just the outcome for the customers. See my previous note: > There can be multiple victims, multiple causes/threat actors, and overlap between two categories. I think we've both concluded now that newsblur was largely a victim as a consumer of docker. Cheers, glad this helped.