6 ms·

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but this reads a bit like victim blaming. "Those sexy trains were manned so skimpily, and going down those long rout

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but this reads a bit like victim blaming. "Those sexy trains were manned so skimpily, and going down those long routes all alone at night, they were just asking for it!"

huytersd 3y ago
I think you’re making the exact opposite point you’re trying to make that’s reaching back to skimpily dressed women in a way you don’t intend.
cogman10 3y ago
Certainly, because it is. I don't think it's wrong to view companies responsibilities as being different from those of an individual. For example, if a company chooses to ignore a RCE vulnerability in their software for years, are they to blame when that vulnerability is exploited? I'd say absolutely they are.
morkalork 3y ago
At the same time, banks and other business take responsibility and pay for armored cars to do pick-ups. They don't just wing it and hope for the best. One question though, what are the laws like surrounding security for trains in the US? In Canada, security employed by rail companies actually have actually been granted all the powers of a police officer by the government.
- zadokshi 3y ago
  The cost of the losses are likely less than the cost of increased security. If it was more profitable to use “armoured cars” they would be doing it. No company willingly chooses the less profitable option.
dwater 3y ago
The railroad companies have their own police forces to protect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States Your analogy doesn't quite hold up here.
theamk 3y ago
Companies are not people. The multi-billion companies should be held responsible for the problems caused by their decisions.
graemep 3y ago
That is a stretch. 1. we do expect people to take preventative measures. I think this is more like someone being blamed for a burglary because they left their house unlocked. I have had car insurance policies that excluded theft resulting from leaving the key in the car. 2. Businesses are not individuals.

huytersd 3y ago

I think you’re making the exact opposite point you’re trying to make that’s reaching back to skimpily dressed women in a way you don’t intend.

cogman10 3y ago

Certainly, because it is. I don't think it's wrong to view companies responsibilities as being different from those of an individual. For example, if a company chooses to ignore a RCE vulnerability in their software for years, are they to blame when that vulnerability is exploited? I'd say absolutely they are.

morkalork 3y ago

At the same time, banks and other business take responsibility and pay for armored cars to do pick-ups. They don't just wing it and hope for the best. One question though, what are the laws like surrounding security for trains in the US? In Canada, security employed by rail companies actually have actually been granted all the powers of a police officer by the government.

zadokshi 3y ago
The cost of the losses are likely less than the cost of increased security. If it was more profitable to use “armoured cars” they would be doing it. No company willingly chooses the less profitable option.

dwater 3y ago

The railroad companies have their own police forces to protect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States Your analogy doesn't quite hold up here.

theamk 3y ago

Companies are not people. The multi-billion companies should be held responsible for the problems caused by their decisions.

graemep 3y ago

That is a stretch. 1. we do expect people to take preventative measures. I think this is more like someone being blamed for a burglary because they left their house unlocked. I have had car insurance policies that excluded theft resulting from leaving the key in the car. 2. Businesses are not individuals.