4 ms·

That's not even close to the same analogy though. This would be like knocking on the door, asking if you can come in, and the person living there letting you in

That's not even close to the same analogy though. This would be like knocking on the door, asking if you can come in, and the person living there letting you in. Then getting mad about it later even though they let you in.

ModernMech 5y ago
I think that's a valid response if the person letting you in wasn't expecting you and didn't want you there. Like, what are you doing knocking on random doors and going into random places just to look around? That's not honest behavior. Honest behavior is that if you know you're not supposed to have access to a thing, you shouldn't obtain access to the thing even if you technically can. I think it's pretty clear that you shouldn't have access to another company's healthcare plans. The first one is a mistake, maybe. The subsequent browsing and comparison shopping of restricted materials is definitely not okay though, and the harsh, suspicious response was warranted.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  >if the person letting you in wasn't expecting you and didn't want you there. Then they shouldn't have let you in. How are you completely absolving them of responsibility when all they had to do was say "Who the hell are you? No, you can't come in."
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Well, to go with the analogy more: I leave my door unlocked because I'm expecting someone. There's a knock at my door and I yell "Come in" without looking at who is at the door. Not an unreasonable thing, happens all the time. When I finally look, I find you in my house, going through all of my things, for no reason other than you wanted to gain insight on my financial situation. Do I bear responsibility for letting you in? Yes. Should you be there? No. Should you have knocked on the door? No. Should you have tried the same at my neighbor's house and every house on my block? No. In this metaphor and in the original context, everyone is acting with honest intent except the actor knowingly trying to access obviously confidential documents.
    - MangezBien 5y ago
      It doesn't mean I am there illegally though. Maybe I am there for some other reason and I thought you wanted to to let me in.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        No one said anything about legality. I'm still going to yell at you to gtfo and never come back again, and I don't see why it would be surprising that I would. Let's drop the metaphor. The original story was that someone accessed a number of documents they weren't supposed to but technically could, and the question was whether or not that it was reasonable that the owners of the documents were upset with that. I argue there was good reason to be upset given the facts on the ground. In this particular situation, the original poster was there to access their own document. Having accessed someone else's document, that would be the point at which the behavior crosses from legitimate to illegitimate if it continues. Leaving at that point would be one appropriate response. But systematically going through a number of different documents goes beyond a mistake and into the realm of intentionally exploiting this security issue for unauthorized purposes. That's when it crosses from "honest mistake" to "dishonest exploitation". I have no idea about the illegality of the issue. But the fact is plain that this person was not the intended recipient of the documents, they knew they weren't the intended recipient, and then after realizing the nature of the exploit, they continued to use it. This is not the same as knocking on a door for a legitimate reason, being let in, and then the person inside being mad you're there. It's knocking on a door for no reason or a malicious reason, knowingly doing something inside the resident doesn't want you to do, and then wondering why they are mad at you.
        MangezBien 5y ago
        The only person to be upset at is the one who didn't put access control on the site. That was a publically available endpoint. The better analogy is putting something private on a public bulletin board and being mad if someone read something you didn't want them to.
        5y ago
BizarroLand 5y ago
More like your friend let you into their apartment but then got upset that you went into the dining room when they only intended for you to go into the living room.
kelnos 5y ago
No, this is more like if you asked the landlord to let you in, and then they did, without the permission of the tenant. The tenant would completely be within their rights to be angry about that. Both at you and the landlord.

ModernMech 5y ago

I think that's a valid response if the person letting you in wasn't expecting you and didn't want you there. Like, what are you doing knocking on random doors and going into random places just to look around? That's not honest behavior. Honest behavior is that if you know you're not supposed to have access to a thing, you shouldn't obtain access to the thing even if you technically can. I think it's pretty clear that you shouldn't have access to another company's healthcare plans. The first one is a mistake, maybe. The subsequent browsing and comparison shopping of restricted materials is definitely not okay though, and the harsh, suspicious response was warranted.

jaywalk 5y ago
>if the person letting you in wasn't expecting you and didn't want you there. Then they shouldn't have let you in. How are you completely absolving them of responsibility when all they had to do was say "Who the hell are you? No, you can't come in."
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Well, to go with the analogy more: I leave my door unlocked because I'm expecting someone. There's a knock at my door and I yell "Come in" without looking at who is at the door. Not an unreasonable thing, happens all the time. When I finally look, I find you in my house, going through all of my things, for no reason other than you wanted to gain insight on my financial situation. Do I bear responsibility for letting you in? Yes. Should you be there? No. Should you have knocked on the door? No. Should you have tried the same at my neighbor's house and every house on my block? No. In this metaphor and in the original context, everyone is acting with honest intent except the actor knowingly trying to access obviously confidential documents.
  - MangezBien 5y ago
    It doesn't mean I am there illegally though. Maybe I am there for some other reason and I thought you wanted to to let me in.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      No one said anything about legality. I'm still going to yell at you to gtfo and never come back again, and I don't see why it would be surprising that I would. Let's drop the metaphor. The original story was that someone accessed a number of documents they weren't supposed to but technically could, and the question was whether or not that it was reasonable that the owners of the documents were upset with that. I argue there was good reason to be upset given the facts on the ground. In this particular situation, the original poster was there to access their own document. Having accessed someone else's document, that would be the point at which the behavior crosses from legitimate to illegitimate if it continues. Leaving at that point would be one appropriate response. But systematically going through a number of different documents goes beyond a mistake and into the realm of intentionally exploiting this security issue for unauthorized purposes. That's when it crosses from "honest mistake" to "dishonest exploitation". I have no idea about the illegality of the issue. But the fact is plain that this person was not the intended recipient of the documents, they knew they weren't the intended recipient, and then after realizing the nature of the exploit, they continued to use it. This is not the same as knocking on a door for a legitimate reason, being let in, and then the person inside being mad you're there. It's knocking on a door for no reason or a malicious reason, knowingly doing something inside the resident doesn't want you to do, and then wondering why they are mad at you.
      - MangezBien 5y ago
        The only person to be upset at is the one who didn't put access control on the site. That was a publically available endpoint. The better analogy is putting something private on a public bulletin board and being mad if someone read something you didn't want them to.
        5y ago

BizarroLand 5y ago

More like your friend let you into their apartment but then got upset that you went into the dining room when they only intended for you to go into the living room.

kelnos 5y ago

No, this is more like if you asked the landlord to let you in, and then they did, without the permission of the tenant. The tenant would completely be within their rights to be angry about that. Both at you and the landlord.