|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Holy fucking smoke, you are a piece of shit.
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well you both headed off in completely different directions with it so I think it's more likely that each of you brought your own typical biases into the equation. Neither of you can see straight on certain issues.
Doesn't follow at all. The murkier something is, the MORE misreadings it will engender, not the fewer. But keep digging. You are at least entertaining.
There is that. It beggars belief orfeo is attempting to defend their post, but since the tool this thread is ostensibly about isn't coming down, at least it provides the denizens with a proxy chewtoy.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And it beggars belief, why exactly?
Seriously, why is it so awful to suggest that blaming victims of computer crime is problematic for similar reasons to why blaming victims of physical crime is problematic?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's not awful, it's just stupid, and for reasons given above. At least for large organizations, there is a duty of care by the IT people, and if the reasonable duty of care could have prevented harm, and it was not done, then the people harmed have a right to be pissed off at the IT people. It's like your night watchman unlocked all the doors and then went down the street for a midnight snack. Sure it's the burglar's fault he stole your desktop computer. But the night watchman had a duty of care that he neglected.
There is no "duty of care" for a rape victim. By equating the two, you are implying there is.
[ 20. May 2017, 03:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is no "duty of care" for a rape victim. By equating the two, you are implying there is.
No I'm bloody well not, because the "duty of care" has nothing to do with the crime. No-one's going to haul these incompetent IT people, if that's what they are, into court to send them to jail, and no-one ought to reduce the sentence of the actual criminal because of what the IT people did or didn't do.
You're fusing together 2 different questions just because you treat "IT person" as a separate category from "victim". They're not. They're part of the same company or organisation that was the victim of the crime.
If you're arguing that IT people have a duty to prevent harm, you're arguing that the victim has a duty to prevent harm to itself.
What about the person who opened the infected email? Where do they fit into your categorisation of people?
[ 20. May 2017, 03:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
People opening emails are not being paid to keep other people safe from emails. Nice try.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're fusing together 2 different questions just because you treat "IT person" as a separate category from "victim". They're not. They're part of the same company or organisation that was the victim of the crime.
If you're arguing that IT people have a duty to prevent harm, you're arguing that the victim has a duty to prevent harm to itself.
A banana is a fruit, a tomato is a fruit. A banana is not, therefore, a tomato.
IT are, in part, a security service. If a property is robbed/damaged under their care, a security service has fault if they failed to take reasonable precaution. IT is no different. This does not mean they have committed a crime. It does mean they have fault.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying the NHS IT are at fault in this particular case. Merely speaking of IT in general.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People opening emails are not being paid to keep other people safe from emails. Nice try.
And this is the point. If you are employed as a security guard, and you take a nap, and the building you are guarding is burgled on your watch, you are clearly at fault. Your job was to guard the building, and you failed at it.
But that's not what orfeo was talking about. You're the building owner. Do you have an obligation to employ a security guard? If you don't employ a guard, and you get burgled, how much blame attaches to you? What if you employed the sleeping guard? You tried to employ a guard, but chose someone who was bad at guarding. Perhaps he was cheap. How much blame?
The guard has a positive responsibility to prevent his building being burgled, because that's his job. It's why he is paid. The building owner doesn't have that same positive responsibility.
Asking the building owner to take precautions against burglary (perhaps by employing a guard), or asking a company or government department to take precautions against hackers (by implementing sensible IT security policies etc.) is no different from asking people not to walk down dark alleys at night wearing expensive jewellery, or any other behaviour that increases their risk of being a crime victim.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Asking the building owner to take precautions against burglary (perhaps by employing a guard), or asking a company or government department to take precautions against hackers (by implementing sensible IT security policies etc.) is no different from asking people not to walk down dark alleys at night wearing expensive jewellery, or any other behaviour that increases their risk of being a crime victim.
Yes it is different. Fuck the stupid comparisons, for a moment.
The government fund the NHS. The NHS use computers and software to better serve their patients. IT is designated to maintain and protect that computer system. If any of those bits fail beyond a reasonable measure, whoever failed to do their bit has fault.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The government fund the NHS. The NHS use computers and software to better serve their patients. IT is designated to maintain and protect that computer system. If any of those bits fail beyond a reasonable measure, whoever failed to do their bit has fault.
Just like the sleeping guard, if you're hired to do a job and you don't do it, you're at fault.
But your language here lacks precision. You seem to be talking about a minimum reasonable level of prudence that people should take to avoid being victims of crime.
In this case, we take the well-known fact that computer viruses, hackers and the like exist, and say that as a consequence of that, people with computer systems should take a minimum level of precautions (anti-virus software, keeping their OS up-to-date, firewalls...), and are at fault if they fail to do so. And probably that people with large computer systems containing lots of valuable information should take more precautions than someone with a single home PC.
But that's exactly the same statement as the one that says that people with cars shouldn't leave then unlocked or with valuables sitting on the seat, people with houses shouldn't leave them unlocked, and people with expensive jewellery should take care over where they display it.
In all these cases, we start with a statement about the criminal environment that exists in the particular locality, and derive a set of normally prudent actions that we expect people to do to protect themselves.
If they fail to take that normally prudent care, we do not blame them for the crime, but we do fault them for failing to take sensible precautions.
But it's exactly the same, whether we're talking about IT systems or rolex watches. I don't understand why you seem to think it's different.
[ 20. May 2017, 16:05: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it comes down to responsibility to OTHERS. If you are a sole proprietorship and have no employees then your level of culpability in not hiring security is different than if you have shareholders or partners or employees. The NHS is entrusted with data for its patients. It owes it to the patients to take due diligence with their data.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The NHS is entrusted with data for its patients. It owes it to the patients to take due diligence with their data.
That's a fair point (even though in this case we're not talking about theft of data). I don't think it's different in quality from, for example, a sole proprietor accountant who holds his clients' financial records, a jeweller who repairs his clients' jewellery, and so on. We'd have higher expectations of those people's security than we would of someone who only places his own personal possessions at risk.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yeah that was my thought. You put it more concisely than I did, for which thanks.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People opening emails are not being paid to keep other people safe from emails. Nice try.
Seriously? Because in my work place, I'm given instructions to be alert about suspicious emails, to not open unexpected attachments or follow unusual links, and to contact IT when something suspicious gets through the filtering system.
In other words I have responsibilities for IT security as well. As part of my job.
This world you live in where one lot is being paid to keep people safe and everyone else is allowed to assume the IT system is perfect is one I don't recognise. And I think my IT staff are pretty awesome.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This world you live in where one lot is being paid to keep people safe and everyone else is allowed to assume the IT system is perfect is one I don't recognise.
Me neither. Because you made it up just now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This world you live in where one lot is being paid to keep people safe and everyone else is allowed to assume the IT system is perfect is one I don't recognise.
Me neither. Because you made it up just now.
I gave you an opportunity to talk about the responsibilities of other staff, and you sure as hell didn't take it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I piped for you, and you did not dance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I piped for you, and you did not dance.
Yes, and now you're telling me how much you love dancing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yeah that was my thought. You put it more concisely than I did, for which thanks.
Yeah! It isn't like this is the entire, fucking obvious, point of even discussing the role of IT here. It isn't like someone said this on the first page, seven days ago. It is, apparently, that "precise" language must be used by the concisely by the "precise" person at the "precise" time? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yeah that was my thought. You put it more concisely than I did, for which thanks.
Yeah! It isn't like this is the entire, fucking obvious, point of even discussing the role of IT here. It isn't like someone said this on the first page, seven days ago. It is, apparently, that "precise" language must be used by the concisely by the "precise" person at the "precise" time?
Whoa, what did YOU sit on? Jayzoos everybody has decided to fly off the handle for absolutely no reason. I mean I get it, it's Hell, if you want to be irrationally angry, you're allowed. But FFS at least find something worth getting angry over. Good fucking grief.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is more disappointed sarcasm than anger.
Anger is reserved, on this thread, for the ridiculous comparisons of rape and assault.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sarcasm I can deal with. But you have been here long enough to know that on a thread this long things get forgotten and brought back up again. If someone makes a point a second time on the same page, I can see some dudgeon. But 7 pages later? I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
7 days, 1 page. I thought isn't that what I have been saying the whole time? I'd better check before accusing. 1 click back. Yep. Like I said, disappointed sarcasm. Anger? Possibly, because lately I'm always angry.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
7 days, 1 page. I thought isn't that what I have been saying the whole time? I'd better check before accusing. 1 click back. Yep. Like I said, disappointed sarcasm. Anger? Possibly, because lately I'm always angry.
Aaaaand we've found my successor.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
