Hacker News Reader

Comment by BuildTheRobots | Hacker News Reader

"they're not talking about the fact that he committed this crime previously,"

You've got to wonder if he used the same password both times. If he did then it strikes me that the teachers and school that should be raked over the coals for not putting even the most basic safegards in place to protect all that confidential data on the laptop -especially after already being shown up about it.

"The teacher’s computer reportedly had sensitive encrypted information related to the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)." -The other thing jumping to mind is that if the sensitive data was all properly encrypted, then even with intent, the student wouldn't have been able to view or tamper with it.

Edit: grammar; as->that

View on HN

Victim Blaming fallacy. Do I need to go further?

Victim blaming is when someone, through no fault of their own, suffers harm.

In this case a reckless disregard for proper security practices was endangering students.

> Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them.

Teacher had his computer improperly accessed by a student. The student did the wrong (granted, it is a minor wrong), and yet you are blaming the teachers.

You are victim blaming. Period.

The teacher is responsible for picking a secure password, just as they're responsible for a number of other things.

They failed in their responsibility. They are not 100% to blame here, but they are not a "victim" like you paint them to be.

> They failed in their responsibility. They are not 100% to blame here, but they are not a "victim" like you paint them to be.

It is a woman's responsibility to dress appropriately in public. She failed in her responsibility and therefore was sexually assaulted.

Dude, you're totally victim blaming. Victims of a crime, however minor, are NOT responsible for the actions of others.

You're stretching what I'm saying totally out of proportion here.

A woman is not responsible for dressing modestly.

A teacher is absolutely responsible for keeping private materials, such as grades, secured according to reasonable practices.

If I leave a bike unlocked in a public place, I can expect it'll get stolen. Although I'm the "victim" here, I'm also partially responsible for failing to secure it properly.

If I have locked bike stolen, then I'm a victim, I did everything reasonable expected to secure my property.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/04/victim-complex-copin...

You are victim blaming! Bikers who leave their bike unlocked do NOT deserve those bikes to be stolen!

They made a mistake. But the criminal remains a criminal. A thief who steals an unlocked bike has committed a crime JUST as heinous as a criminal who steals a locked bike. The level of effort is much lower, but the crime is one and the same.

Similarly, our discussion is with regards to this kid who gained unauthorized access to a computer. Granted, this "unauthorized" access was laughably weak amount of security, but it is still victim blaming to offload the blame from the criminal (ie: the kid).

So someone who ignorantly walks off a cliff is a victim? Someone who was electrocuted by a hairdryer in a bathtub despite knowing the risks? Someone who failed to secure a firearm and was shot by their dog?

People have a certain amount of responsibility they are expected to assume. If they fail in this responsibility they may end up victims but they are not entirely blameless. I'm not saying they have to lead flawless lives or take every precaution imaginable, but failing to apply basic common sense introduces some degree of blame.

You seem to think that victims are always, without exception, innocent of the events that lead up to their situation. It would be victim blaming if they had taken reasonable precautions. They didn't. You're victim sainting here.

I'm not suggesting the kid is without blame, but they're not 100% at fault either. A more secure password, which is to be expected when dealing with sensitive data, would have avoided all of this. Then the student would have had to actually hack the account.

I also find it laughable that changing wallpaper makes someone a victim. Can we reserve that term for when actual harm was caused?

If anything this kid has ended up the victim in all of this. A felony is a tough thing to shake.

> If anything this kid has ended up the victim in all of this. A felony is a tough thing to shake.

Good thing this kid doesn't have a felony on his record. He has a felony charge, one that the Police were planning to drop pre-trial. That is a very different thing.

> I also find it laughable that changing wallpaper makes someone a victim. Can we reserve that term for when actual harm was caused?

Okay then, first you recognize that the kid's permanent record wasn't harmed by the police. Then I'll recognize that the teacher wasn't harmed either. The majority of damage to this kid's reputation was done by the newspaper when they wantonly published the kid's name.

> Do I need to go further?

Yes, I think you do. AstroDust's reply is worth bearing in mind too [1].

If you're going to store confidential information (which is hard to avoid being a school) then you should be responsible for securing it adequately. This seems more than possible using current technology and only a small amount of education for staff.

When your security has been shown _repeatedly_ to be inadequate to protect against _children_ then I really don't think the school is taking their responsibilities seriously.

Edit: Lets spin this another way. I keep all the cleaning and other dangerous chemicals in a cupboard. If the lock is broken and a child manages to hurt themselves, then it doesn't really matter if the cupboard is out-of-bounds; I've still neglected my duty of care and I'm going to get into trouble. If months later I've still not bothered fixing the lock and another child gets hurt, then the only person responsible should be me.

Children are expected to break the rules and do silly things, whether they expect it to end badly or not; this is why we classify them as children and usually expect them to need supervision.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9408704

Reply on news.ycombinator.com