Please explain to me how stating that a victim 'bears some of the blame' in any way fits into the liberal way of thinking? Oh, wait, I know. The victim was a conservative.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > You have reading problems Scott? (Another argument against homeschooling I > guess)... I though I made it quite clear, as did Dana, that we never said > it was ok. Yes she does bear some of the blame as she was negligent in > making sure her account was secured...which is her responsibility. If > someone in your company uses poor password encryption and vital data gets > hacked because of it, how long is that person going to keep being employed > there? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:24 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! > > > Between you andEric, it seems you guys are saying that because she did > not use good security measures AND that the kid found info that might > indicate illegal activity on Palin's part that it is OK that he did > this and that Palin herself bears some blame for being hacked. > > Does that sound right? > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> there are several slipperey slope fallacies there... >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> You will need to forgive me for misinterpretting this: >>> >>> 'But again, if you don't secure thing and you leave it wide open, >>> don't be surprised when someone >>> comes it. Not leaving it secured is akin to putting a neon sign over >>> it and saying come on in...especially if you are a public figure.' >>> >>> As you saying 'she deserved it'...it seems like a logical conclusion >>> to me. To me, saying a victim 'deserved' what happened to them, is the >>> same as defending those who perpetrated the crime. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Eric Roberts >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't recall seeing anything defending anyone coming from me...so > either I >>>> was typing in my sleep or you're toking on some good stuff over there >>>> Scott... My point was that if you dont use proper security, then dont > act >>>> all surprised when someone does hack you. That is common sense. Other > than >>>> mailboxes in apartments and other multi-family dwellings, I haven't, but >>>> that doesn't meant hey don't exist obviously. When most people think >>>> mailbox, however, they are thinking of your standard, non paranoid, > single >>>> owner type. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:29 AM >>>> To: cf-community >>>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >>>> >>>> >>>> I cannot believe that you guys are actually trying to defend the >>>> invasion of someone's privacy. Is this Bizaro World? What's next? Sam >>>> touting the benefits of Obama-care? >>>> >>>> BTW - I have seen mailboxes that have an opening to put mail into, but >>>> also a door, with a lock, to get it out. Still, lock or not, it is >>>> illegal, and I believe a felony, to open someone else's mail. >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eric Roberts >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's even a bad analogy. The mail box isn't locked and cant be (or > how >>>>> else does mail get in), while your email is supposed to be secured. If >>>> you >>>>> want to stick to the snail mail analogy, then maybe a PO box and you > leave >>>>> your key hanging on the box at the post office. But again, if you > don't >>>>> secure thing and you leave it wide open, don't be surprised when > someone >>>>> comes it. Not leaving it secured is akin to putting a neon sign over > it >>>> and >>>>> saying come on in...especially if you are a public figure. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Medic [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:54 AM >>>>> To: cf-community >>>>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't really think comparing it to breaking into a house is a very > good >>>>> analogy. I think it's probably more accurate to equate it to taking > mail >>>> out >>>>> of someone's mail box. I believe this is a felony. And if someone did > it >>>> you >>>>> would blame the victim by saying "well the mailbox wasn't even locked." >>>>> >>>>> I think it sucks that some kid who guesses a password gets time, but > it's >>>> a >>>>> crime and a massive, premeditated invasion of privacy. We need to > protect >>>>> that privacy, especially now as we're losing more and more of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317232 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
