[markjo]

123456  Crap!! 

[beardo]

Crap!! 

[Hoppy]

Computers are far more ubiquitous than cars. In fact, there are multiple computers in every modern car.

ubiquitous

[Vongeo]

If I'm waking down the street, and somebody shoots me in the face, I should of had a bullet proof face.

The ease of a crime does not make the victims responsible.


Also, I'd like to bitch about computer literacy people who don't know about cars or economics or specialized fields that make the world go ronud.

[Rama Set]

Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development.  I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.

[Pete Svarrior]

Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development.  I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.

Yes, exactly. Most of us, at least in the western world, use computers in our everyday lives. It's not just becoming inescapable, it already has become inescapable. I'd actually venture to say that they're more prevalent than cars at this point, and if that's not the case yet, it very soon will be.

Most of those who own or otherwise use a car know how to drive one well enough not to cause frequent accidents. Most will have the sense to wear a seatbelt (and, in fact, it's the law in many places to wear one). Most of those who have a bank account understand the concept of an overdraft limit and know better than to cross it. They also know not to write their PIN right on the surface of their debit/credit cards. For some reason, the same does not apply to computer users.

This doesn't mean you should know every single thing about computers, or cars. It doesn't mean you should be an expert, a programmer, or anything like that. The sad reality we're facing right now is that many people think that some very basic computer-related tasks require said expertise. In the least serious of cases, this means that someone will pay me a disproportionate amount of money for half an hour of my time. In more serious cases, computer-illiterate people will go to www.bankofamerica.com.freepornsite.ru/moneystealingpage.asp and find themselves robbed blind.

Back in high school, I held a small talk about phishing and tried to explain to people how a little bit of basic scrutiny can protect you from most attacks. While some people appreciated it, I ended up being heckled by a few people in the room, who felt it was appropriate to tell me that this kind of knowledge is reserved for nerds with no lives. I asked one of them if knowing how to avoid an obvious scam is really something that only boring nerds should know. His response? "No, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about boring programming stuff". Needless to say, I didn't mention programming throughout the talk at all.

[Particle Person]

Computers aren't people, there is no difference between "clocktower" and "cl0Ckt0W3r" to a computer

So if I set my password to "cl0Ckt0W3r" and enter "clocktower", it will work? You have this backwards. A person can interpret "clocktower" and "cl0Ckt0W3r" the same way, but a computer won't.

[rooster]

Computer Literacy is not the same thing as Computer Engineering or Software Development.  I think in the analogy being tossed around with cars, what PP is talking about is more like getting a driver's license than becoming a mechanic.

Yes, exactly. Most of us, at least in the western world, use computers in our everyday lives. It's not just becoming inescapable, it already has become inescapable. I'd actually venture to say that they're more prevalent than cars at this point, and if that's not the case yet, it very soon will be.

Most of those who own or otherwise use a car know how to drive one well enough not to cause frequent accidents. Most will have the sense to wear a seatbelt (and, in fact, it's the law in many places to wear one). Most of those who have a bank account understand the concept of an overdraft limit and know better than to cross it. They also know not to write their PIN right on the surface of their debit/credit cards. For some reason, the same does not apply to computer users.

These analogies are still terrible.

These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety). If they had written their password down somewhere or told people their passwords then it would be like writing your PIN on your debit card. And this isn't related to phishing at all.

So they did have the very basic in computer safety (a password). If they had just put the pictures on their public facebook then it would definitely be their fault. If they uploaded the pictures onto a public site that they just thought was private, then it would be their fault.

[Pete Svarrior]

These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety).

No. And the reason we need education is so that people stop thinking that bullshit like this is correct.

[rooster]

These people had passwords which I see as akin to wearing a seatbelt (the very basic in safety).

No. And the reason we need education is so that people stop thinking that bullshit like this is correct.

Fine, it's more like a deadbolt lock then. That shit doesn't keep you safe at all but it makes people feel safe. It's still no one's fault for using it and getting harmed from an intruder.

I see what you're saying, you think people should have some basic computer education. That's fine. Computer education courses are becoming more common in schools. However, none of the blame is on the victims just because they didn't protect their stuff as you said they should have. It's not their fault in the slightest.

If they had better security would this have happened? Maybe not.
If they had never taken the pictures would this have happened? Definitely not.
Did they fall for an obvious phishing scheme? No.
Did the hacker see their passwords written somewhere? No.
Did they just use crappy passwords with no other security precautions? Yes.
Are they at all to blame for someone taking the time and effort to hack into their poorly protected accounts? Nope.

[Pete Svarrior]

Fine, it's more like a deadbolt lock then.

No, now you're even more wrong. It's a shitty plastic padlock at best. A pink, heart-shaped one, with a My Little Pony logo right on it. And yet people think it'll do the trick.

However, none of the blame is on the victims just because they didn't protect their stuff as you said they should have. It's not their fault in the slightest.

If a person dies in a car accident (which they didn't cause) because they didn't wear a seatbelt, it's partially their responsibility that they died. They put themselves in a dangerous situation purely by their own choice.

[rooster]

No, now you're even more wrong.

Definitely not. It's really easy to bump a lock. Seatbelts are more useful.

If a person dies in a car accident they didn't cause because they didn't wear a seatbelt, it's partially their fault that they died. They put themselves in a dangerous situation purely by their own choice.

Being in a car wreck means you didn't pay attention to something happening. You are an activate participant. If someone rear ends you hard enough and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you fly through the window, and die then it's not your fault. The driver of the car that didn't stop would be charged.

I believe you have to be an active participant to receive any blame. If someone fell for an obvious phishing scheme then I would be more willing to agree with you. It's possible to be in a dangerous situation and not receive any blame.

[Tau]

I think the real point to be made here is that when things like this happen, the first question people ask is "what was she doing to deserve this" rather than "what asshole did that to her". That's pretty messed up, regardless of the details.

But that's not what I did at all. When I joined this thread, I essentially said: Yes, the thief is the one who's guilty here; but that's not something you or me can fix. We can't magically erase thieves from the world to protect ourselves or others. I then continued: It's naive to say you take absolutely no responsibility if you failed to protect yourself; because that is something you can affect, and in this particular case it's very easy.

I'm not saying they deserved it, I'm saying they take partial responsibility.

Oh, I'm not talking about you. I'm speaking very broadly about a trend I've noticed in situations such as this one. The question of who's really to blame is uncomfortably prevalent imo. I'm of the opinion that the questions we ask are more important than their answers, and there's something to be said for what order in which we ask our questions.

[Pete Svarrior]

Definitely not. It's really easy to bump a lock. Seatbelts are more useful.

We won't make any progress on that front until you become computer-literate, so I think it's best we drop that.

Being in a car wreck means you didn't pay attention to something happening. You are an activate participant. If someone rear ends you hard enough and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you fly through the window, and die then it's not your fault. The driver of the car that didn't stop would be charged.

Yes, I made the mistake of using the word "fault". I meant to say "responsibility". You take responsibility for your own security. If you don't and just expect big bad meanies to go away, well, I'll gloat when something bad happens to you.

It's possible to be in a dangerous situation and not receive any blame.

Sure, if you don't do anything that directly puts you in it (getting rear-ended is a great example of that). Now, setting a password is a conscious action. It's one that usually comes with plenty of warnings. If you ignore those warnings and opt for a terrible password, you actively put yourself in a dangerous situation. You are an active participant, by virtue of the fact that you became a participant through your action - that is a logical tautology. Just because it's not as severe as falling for a phishing scam doesn't make it not an action, or not your responsibility.

[Rama Set]

To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily.  This is simply not the case.  I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password.  Basically I would be guessing blindly.

The deadbolt analogy seems pretty apt to me.  It is secure enough that you need above average knowledge to open it without the key or you need to be willing to go extreme lengths to do so without the key.

[Pete Svarrior]

To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily.  This is simply not the case.  I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password.

You download a piece of software and press "go". Not exaggerating. No knowledge required. Just like a pink plastic MLP lock, you may need to spend a very short period of time planning and applying your approach, but there is no higher knowledge to obtain on the subject.

[Rama Set]

To say a password is like a plastic pink padlock is to say that anyone, even those of less than average computer literacy should be able to crack the password extremely easily.  This is simply not the case.  I am of average computer literacy, and would not know the first thing about cracking a password.

You download a piece of software and press "go". Not exaggerating. No knowledge required.

Well yes there was:

You download a piece of software and press "go".

This is what people are saying.  To you this is second hand and you do not even think about how easy it is for you, however this solution literally did not even occur to me.  So the problem is not as trivial as you make it, but yes, an increase in computer literacy would be a boon.

[Pete Svarrior]

Well, that's because we literally need to start teaching kids to use Google. These things are trivial and basic. That they're not commonly known is exactly my problem.

[rooster]

That sounds just a tad easier than buying a 999 key and bumping a lock to me.

But you finally conceded in that they're not at fault but they could've taken more responsibility which I will agree with.

[Pete Svarrior]

That sounds just a tad easier than buying a 999 key and bumping a lock to me.

Yes, which is why I insist on rejecting your lock analogy in favour of my "shitty plastic padlock" one. Mine is simply closer to the truth.

But you finally conceded in that they're not at fault but they could've taken more responsibility which I will agree with.

I never claimed they're at fault. I misspoke in my recent message and corrected myself shortly afterwards (If you look at the timestamps, I actually edited my post to replace the word "fault" before you posted your reply). Consult my first post here:

Yes, the thief is the one guilty of committing a crime. There's no denying that. However, it's naive to say that you take no responsibility for the security of your home/data/hot hot porn pix.