Re: slightly off topic - "break" a database

"Mark Bole" <makbo_at_pacbell.net> wrote in message news:YKEPe.921$sV7.699_at_newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> DA Morgan wrote:
>
> > Mark Bole wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand, the colleague whose laptop was so totally
> >> vulnerable deserves some blame as well,
> >
> >
> > Calling you on this.
> >
> > People who don't lock their doors deserve to have their houses robbed?
> > People who carry cash in their wallets deserve to be mugged?
> > People who don't drive around in armoured cars deserve to be shot?
> > People who let their children play outside deserve to have them raped?
> >
> > Sorry Mark but that's total ....
> >
> > A civil society can not exist when the standard is "if I can figure out
> > how to hurt you" then it is at least partially your fault.
> >
> > Please reconsider what you wrote.
>
> Wow, that's quite some list of violent crimes.
>
> The fact is, all the things you wrote do happen, even to "good people".
> Upon reconsideration, I still think that if a legally competent adult in
> our "civil society" doesn't take reasonable precautions, based on common
> knowledge, to protect themselves from harm, then yes, they are to some
> degree to blame. The source of the harm doesn't matter -- someone who
> doesnt' wear a helmet when motorcycling or who doesn't cook their meat
> before eating is also partially at fault for any harm they suffer as a
> result. And an employee who doesn't secure and backup their laptop
> computer is also to blame, something many companies have as an official
> policy.
>
> I am not claiming that this in any way lessens the culpability of the
> harm-doer (fault in this case not being a fixed quantity). We haven't
> heard from the colleague who was allegedly harmed in this case, and
> there is always another side to the story. But I was in no way
> defending Bdbafh's actions, rather suggesting that an authorized and
> announced test of this nature would be OK (in fact, a good thing!), but
> not as a practical joke.
>
> -Mark Bole
>
>
>
>
>

So, I guess a woman who wears too sexy an outfit while going out to a club is partially to be blamed if she gets raped?

She may not have exercised common sense in the choice of her outfit, but that doesn't mean she deserves partial blame for being raped (in fact, I don't think it would have mattered what she wore).

Machiavelli says, "Live in the world as it is, not as it should be." This is really good advice because there are some really bad people out there.
If you're the victim of a crime because of some oversight or lack of common sense, that doesn't mean you're partially to blame for the crime, it just means that the other person is just a despicaple, lowlife scoundrel. So, it would behoove that woman to carry mace or some other protective mechanism whether or not she's wearing a sexy outfit on her way to the club.

The same concept can be applied to the case introduced by the OP. I wouldn't blame the victim. He probably trusted the criminal, but he should have taken pecautions that would have secured his computer.

I learned my lesson of Machiavelli a long time ago when I caught my first computer virus, "The Lamer Exterminator, special." Ever since then I have been security and virus aware and have my machines and network locked down tighter than a bullfrog's backside, which of course is water tight.

-- 

Andreas Sheriff
Oracle 9i Certified Professional
Oracle 10g Certified Professional
Oracle 9i Certified PL/SQL Developer
----
"If you don't eat your meat, you cannot have any pudding.
"How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your meat?"

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
Reply only to the group.