4 ms·

I believe this line of thought is commonly called “blaming the victim”.

plasmatix 3y ago
I mean, if someone dies in a car crash and they weren’t wearing their seat belt, is it victim blaming to say they should have been?
- pipes 3y ago
  Yeah but if someone purposely drives into that car with the intention of killing the driver, I'd hope they went to prison even if the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    In the US, the person who sold the car will go to jail as an accessory to murder .
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      Many such cases. Sad!
      - 11101010001100 3y ago
        Yes, theoretically we're all guilty of felony murder.
foobarbaz333 3y ago
There are compliance regulations that require this btw.
capableweb 3y ago
No, blaming the victim would have been: > The only reason this happened was because they failed to secure their own systems, it was bound to happen Instead, parent said: > IT also failed to put enough checks here My emphasis on the "also".
bitwize 3y ago
It's totally legitimate to simultaneously hold that the real perpetrator is, er, the perpetrator, and that the victim could have done more to prevent the incident from happening. Jail the guy, and let his story stand as a warning to implement proper IT and HR practices.
acdha 3y ago
Nobody is excusing him but it’s possible for multiple people to make very bad decisions as part of the same problem. In this case, the bank has almost certainly claimed to have security policies in place which would have prevented any of the damages in question. I don’t even work in banking but “how do you deactivate accounts when someone leaves?” is in every single system’s approval process and ongoing audits. Think of it as if he had stolen money from them after being fired: there’s no question that the culpability would be his but also regulators and insurance would descend on the bank’s management asking why they lacked such basic internal controls for such very well-known risks. Most places will remove all forms of access as soon as the decision is made to fire someone because it’s the most likely time to have anything from theft to, in the US, a workplace shooting.
pierat 3y ago
Sometimes, the victim is *also* to blame. When shitty policies are part of the root cause, then yes, the victim also shares in creating an environment that allowed easy victimization. You wouldn't secure your laptop in the front seat of a car in NYC or Chicago. Just as you are not to blame with the vandalization and theft of said equipment, you also could have did easy mitigations to hamper it. People who shout "victim blaming" are also refusing to take responsibility for reasonable remediations that would have prevented the bad thing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

I mean, if someone dies in a car crash and they weren’t wearing their seat belt, is it victim blaming to say they should have been?

pipes 3y ago
Yeah but if someone purposely drives into that car with the intention of killing the driver, I'd hope they went to prison even if the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt
- 11101010001100 3y ago
  In the US, the person who sold the car will go to jail as an accessory to murder .
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Many such cases. Sad!
    - 11101010001100 3y ago
      Yes, theoretically we're all guilty of felony murder.

foobarbaz333 3y ago

There are compliance regulations that require this btw.

capableweb 3y ago

No, blaming the victim would have been: > The only reason this happened was because they failed to secure their own systems, it was bound to happen Instead, parent said: > IT also failed to put enough checks here My emphasis on the "also".

bitwize 3y ago

It's totally legitimate to simultaneously hold that the real perpetrator is, er, the perpetrator, and that the victim could have done more to prevent the incident from happening. Jail the guy, and let his story stand as a warning to implement proper IT and HR practices.

acdha 3y ago

Nobody is excusing him but it’s possible for multiple people to make very bad decisions as part of the same problem. In this case, the bank has almost certainly claimed to have security policies in place which would have prevented any of the damages in question. I don’t even work in banking but “how do you deactivate accounts when someone leaves?” is in every single system’s approval process and ongoing audits. Think of it as if he had stolen money from them after being fired: there’s no question that the culpability would be his but also regulators and insurance would descend on the bank’s management asking why they lacked such basic internal controls for such very well-known risks. Most places will remove all forms of access as soon as the decision is made to fire someone because it’s the most likely time to have anything from theft to, in the US, a workplace shooting.

pierat 3y ago

Sometimes, the victim is *also* to blame. When shitty policies are part of the root cause, then yes, the victim also shares in creating an environment that allowed easy victimization. You wouldn't secure your laptop in the front seat of a car in NYC or Chicago. Just as you are not to blame with the vandalization and theft of said equipment, you also could have did easy mitigations to hamper it. People who shout "victim blaming" are also refusing to take responsibility for reasonable remediations that would have prevented the bad thing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]