3 ms·

At what point do you differentiate naïveté from negligence?

• MartinCron 13y ago
  When it has external impact. Leaving your own door unlocked is very different from leaving everyone's safe deposit boxes unlocked.
• jforman 13y ago
  With real property, you can't get sued for negligence just for having lax security. You can incur liability if somebody gets onto your property and hurts themselves (the particulars of which I'm not familiar with since IANAL), and you may lose some protection for property damage/loss, but the standard for that is also very much in favor of the property owner.
• columbo 13y ago
  When a company makes a guarantee that they do not uphold. You buy a storage bin from a company that guarantees 24x7 security and your stuff is stolen because there was no nightwatchman on duty then you have a case against the company. That doesn't give the thief a free pass or make their actions right, however partial blame does go to the storage company. The same theory should apply to the internet.
• samuellevy 13y ago
  At a certain level, naïveté is negligence. I work with systems that have to comply with HIPPA regulations. If we didn't comply, we couldn't say "Oh, we didn't know, we'll do better next time". It is our job to know, and to comply with regulations; anything else is us being negligent of our duties. A company the size of AOL? They're negligent. This doesn't mean that what Weev did was good, or OK, or even that he should be the poster boy for reform. He also knew what he was doing, and the fact that AOL's security was poor doesn't excuse it. If anything he'll become the poster boy for "why these laws need to exist".