3 ms·

Nope. It means the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it.

rapidaneurism 10d ago
And most people do not have guards and dogs walking around the perimeter, but we still blame the burglars for breaking in their houses.
shitloadofbooks 10d ago
So if you steal something it means the owner didn’t do a good job securing it and if you murder someone they didn’t do a good job protecting themselves? What an absurd world view.
- CrimsonRain 10d ago
  The diff is that owner is responsible for their own shit where a telco has everyone's things in there and is exposed to the whole world instead of just one street. It is like a bank that has sloppy security and exposes you to the whole world, including adversaries from Russia china NK etc. Things like Telco cloud banks should absolutely be thrashed for having bad security. Responsible disclosure should also be a thing but we all know these companies sue people for that too.
- ExoticPearTree 9d ago
  I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.
  - Mistletoe 9d ago
    If your bank has shoddy software and a thief steals your money is that ok?
    - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
      I don’t care in that scenario, it is the bank’s fault, not mine. It is on them to make it right.
      - Craighead 9d ago
        It is this disconnected from reality attitude that gives technical people a bad reputation. Please reconsider your bad takes.
  - zbentley 9d ago
    Does that extend to medical systems? If someone hacks my pacemaker and destabilizes my heart, or my pharmacy/hospital and prevents me from receiving medical care, is that something that should be legally permitted on the basis that "medical device makers/pharmacies/hospitals should try harder, and should somehow compensate their patients if a hack occurs"? How do you compensate someone who's dead? This isn't hypothetical: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/28/cyberattacks-u-s-hospitals-00075638 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/28/cyberattacks-u-s-ho...
    - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
      > Does that extend to medical systems? Anything network connected that can be reached by an adversary. And, I did not say it shoukd be legal or illegal, just that the fault lies with who administers/secures those systems, not with whoever breaches them. > How do you compensate someone who's dead? In some countries where I lived, there were pricelists based on nationality that insurance would pay out in case of accidental death. If you live in a more homogenous country, you can use other factors to determine what the payout should be.
darkwater 10d ago
This is the epitome of the "blame the victim" culture.
- ExoticPearTree 9d ago
  When it comes to computers and software, yes. They need to do a better job not letting others screw them over.
  - foco_tubi 9d ago
    It’s an interesting view. In this case you are claiming the victims are bound to the creator/vendor of the software/service, not the hacker?
    - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
      In a nutshell, yes. My issue is that software security is not taken seriously most of the time because features are more important than spending a little more time on code quality. The hacker is not the one writing buggy software.
enneff 10d ago
Maybe you should think through the consequences of living in a society where anything a person can do is allowed lmao
lukan 10d ago
So you would be fine with someone clearing out your house, while you were away? There is no door, that cannot be opened with enough effort. Part of what stops people trying, is the fear of consequences.
- ExoticPearTree 9d ago
  I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.
dxdm 9d ago
Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"? Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the hack caused real damage and suffering? For example, people's medical histories get stolen and exposed? Ransomware encrypts hospital systems, disrupting medical care? Or, the inverse: while you're away, somebody breaks into your home non-destructively, takes some photos, sleeps on your couch, and leaves. Should that be forbidden? Your fault for allowing it? It is easier to pull something like this in the digital world, is that why it seems different to you?
- miki123211 9d ago
  I don't agree with GP at all, but making hacking illegal indeed gives companies a false sense of security. Making burglaries illegal is a real way of preventing many burglaries from happening, because it puts people committing them in prison and deters some from doing it in the first place. This only works because the burglar is in the same place as the burglary, and so they can be arrested. People with little to no computer experience apply the same standard to cybersecurity and treat foreign hackers the same way as burglars. Then they get surprised when the Russians hack them and the FBI does nothing.
  - dxdm 9d ago
    You're presenting a false dilemma, there are more options than "all hacking is completely illegal" and "all hacking is a free-for-all". We're in a thread that starts from the notion that it should not be illegal to "hack a telecom network and take control of it", because "the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it." That's essentially the free-for-all position, and defending it by claiming that the opposite extreme is the only other option is a false choice. Nuance and compromise exist, and our world is made of them. Also, your argument about burglars can be applied to "hackers", too. Police can find and arrest people domestically and beyond. Consequences deter people from all sorts of illegal activity. On the other hand, nation states are not necessarily deterred by laws from kidnapping and killing people inside the territory of other countries. You've probably seen the news. What's different is the ease of access to digitical, internet-connected systems, and the scale of abuse that affords. That's a reason to think differently about _how_ to shape the rules and laws around "hacking", but not a reason to have no rules or laws at all.
talon8635 9d ago
This is trolling or edgelord teen

And most people do not have guards and dogs walking around the perimeter, but we still blame the burglars for breaking in their houses.

shitloadofbooks 10d ago

So if you steal something it means the owner didn’t do a good job securing it and if you murder someone they didn’t do a good job protecting themselves? What an absurd world view.

CrimsonRain 10d ago
The diff is that owner is responsible for their own shit where a telco has everyone's things in there and is exposed to the whole world instead of just one street. It is like a bank that has sloppy security and exposes you to the whole world, including adversaries from Russia china NK etc. Things like Telco cloud banks should absolutely be thrashed for having bad security. Responsible disclosure should also be a thing but we all know these companies sue people for that too.
ExoticPearTree 9d ago
I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.
- Mistletoe 9d ago
  If your bank has shoddy software and a thief steals your money is that ok?
  - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
    I don’t care in that scenario, it is the bank’s fault, not mine. It is on them to make it right.
    - Craighead 9d ago
      It is this disconnected from reality attitude that gives technical people a bad reputation. Please reconsider your bad takes.
- zbentley 9d ago
  Does that extend to medical systems? If someone hacks my pacemaker and destabilizes my heart, or my pharmacy/hospital and prevents me from receiving medical care, is that something that should be legally permitted on the basis that "medical device makers/pharmacies/hospitals should try harder, and should somehow compensate their patients if a hack occurs"? How do you compensate someone who's dead? This isn't hypothetical: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/28/cyberattacks-u-s-hospitals-00075638 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/28/cyberattacks-u-s-ho...
  - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
    > Does that extend to medical systems? Anything network connected that can be reached by an adversary. And, I did not say it shoukd be legal or illegal, just that the fault lies with who administers/secures those systems, not with whoever breaches them. > How do you compensate someone who's dead? In some countries where I lived, there were pricelists based on nationality that insurance would pay out in case of accidental death. If you live in a more homogenous country, you can use other factors to determine what the payout should be.

darkwater 10d ago

This is the epitome of the "blame the victim" culture.

ExoticPearTree 9d ago
When it comes to computers and software, yes. They need to do a better job not letting others screw them over.
- foco_tubi 9d ago
  It’s an interesting view. In this case you are claiming the victims are bound to the creator/vendor of the software/service, not the hacker?
  - ExoticPearTree 9d ago
    In a nutshell, yes. My issue is that software security is not taken seriously most of the time because features are more important than spending a little more time on code quality. The hacker is not the one writing buggy software.

enneff 10d ago

Maybe you should think through the consequences of living in a society where anything a person can do is allowed lmao

lukan 10d ago

So you would be fine with someone clearing out your house, while you were away? There is no door, that cannot be opened with enough effort. Part of what stops people trying, is the fear of consequences.

ExoticPearTree 9d ago
I have this view when it comes to computers and software, not physical property or people.

dxdm 9d ago

Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"? Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the hack caused real damage and suffering? For example, people's medical histories get stolen and exposed? Ransomware encrypts hospital systems, disrupting medical care? Or, the inverse: while you're away, somebody breaks into your home non-destructively, takes some photos, sleeps on your couch, and leaves. Should that be forbidden? Your fault for allowing it? It is easier to pull something like this in the digital world, is that why it seems different to you?

miki123211 9d ago
I don't agree with GP at all, but making hacking illegal indeed gives companies a false sense of security. Making burglaries illegal is a real way of preventing many burglaries from happening, because it puts people committing them in prison and deters some from doing it in the first place. This only works because the burglar is in the same place as the burglary, and so they can be arrested. People with little to no computer experience apply the same standard to cybersecurity and treat foreign hackers the same way as burglars. Then they get surprised when the Russians hack them and the FBI does nothing.
- dxdm 9d ago
  You're presenting a false dilemma, there are more options than "all hacking is completely illegal" and "all hacking is a free-for-all". We're in a thread that starts from the notion that it should not be illegal to "hack a telecom network and take control of it", because "the people running it did not do a good job configuring and securing it." That's essentially the free-for-all position, and defending it by claiming that the opposite extreme is the only other option is a false choice. Nuance and compromise exist, and our world is made of them. Also, your argument about burglars can be applied to "hackers", too. Police can find and arrest people domestically and beyond. Consequences deter people from all sorts of illegal activity. On the other hand, nation states are not necessarily deterred by laws from kidnapping and killing people inside the territory of other countries. You've probably seen the news. What's different is the ease of access to digitical, internet-connected systems, and the scale of abuse that affords. That's a reason to think differently about _how_ to shape the rules and laws around "hacking", but not a reason to have no rules or laws at all.

talon8635 9d ago

This is trolling or edgelord teen