SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The third largest breach ever just happened in Finland. Passwords were stored in plaintext. At T-Mobile Austria, they explain that of course they store the password in plaintext, but they have so good security so it's nothing to worry about. At what point does this become criminally negligent?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
At What Point Does Storing Passwords in Plaintext Become Criminally Negligent
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 138 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:21AM (10 children)
s/All/Involuntary/
If you're going to speak for me, do so correctly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:40AM (9 children)
This is the first time I've ever heard or seen you qualify that. In the past it's always been a flat-out condemnation of the entire idea of taxation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @03:17AM (8 children)
Fair enough. Like everyone else, I'm not always utterly precise. I have zero issue with voluntary taxation except possibly minor debates on specific rates. My issue is with the use of force to compel anyone to give you money. Done by anyone but a government, that is a crime. Why is it suddenly moral if a government does it? "Government" is not a magic word that makes anything they feel like doing morally correct.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @04:56AM (7 children)
You *sure* you're not Mr. Vim? You keep saying basically the same stuff he does.
We've been over this road before, and as I recall, last time I brought up the idea of a social contract, you more or less said "I didn't sign any contract" without actually putting it in those words. You have, at least, this time hit on the essential difference between legal and moral, but where do you get your morals from and what grounds them, ontologically speaking?
Last time, your answer to that was basically "the natural state of humanity is liberty." Well, perhaps so, but the natural state of humanity is ALSO sleeping up a tree, prey to any horrible murdercat or awful ague that comes along, with a good chance of being dead in your 30s even if you survive past age 5, which you have barely even odds of doing. Taxes may not be natural, but "natural" doesn't define good or evil.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @05:46AM (6 children)
Well, I do code entirely in vim but, no, I never post here under a pseudonym of any kind. My nick here is what I've answered to since I was sixteen unless I was doing something official paperworky.
Where do you get morals from? I had a couple paragraphs typed up citing Judeo-Christian philosophy, Wicca, Buddhism, and other stuff in answer but really, they come from my bathroom mirror. If I can look in it and be happy with what looks back is what my morals are grounded upon. Basing your morality on anything but an extremely thorough self inspection is the act of a coward. Passing the buck to the writings of dead men is a cop out. By all means take wisdom anywhere you can find it but the responsibility for your thoughts, speech, and actions is entirely your own.
The point of "the natural state of humanity is liberty" isn't that natural is good. It was that rights do not need to originate from anywhere. They're what was always there before you started allowing them to be taken away. It's like asking where darkness originates from. It doesn't, it's the absence of light.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:50PM (5 children)
How utterly solipsistic...or maybe you're just not used to digging this far down.
Okay, so you say your morals come only from you and whether or not you're happy with "what you see in the mirror." But what standard are you using to judge that? WHY would doing X or Y or Z make you unhappy? THAT'S what we mean by the grounding of morals. I don't think it's as self-centered as you think, and it's certainly not as much about simple introspection in a vacuum.
And, sorry, but *all* of these concepts need derived from somewhere. That is foundationalism for you. These "rights" need to be built on something. What is it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @04:02PM (4 children)
You seem to feel the need for something other than yourself to base your own morality on. I don't. Basing your morality on something external is just an attempt at pushing a responsibility that is solely your own upon something beyond your control so that you don't have to take responsibility for yourself. Even were there an all knowing/powerful creator who had decreed a set of moral principles in fire across the sky, it would not obviate your personal responsibility to decide right and wrong for yourself.
No, they are not. You really can't understand that rights are not something given to you but something you innately possess, can you? You need an authority to point to and say "here is where rights and morality come from". Why? Authority is what needs to be derived, rights simply exist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @07:25PM (3 children)
You don't do logic so well, do you?
I am not saying "there needs to be an authority." YOU are. I am saying "show me the ontological grounding of these rights you say we have." It's not enough to stamp your feet and pout and say "They just ARE, so THERE! *prrrrbtphsth*" For once in your goddamn life, stop relying on the stereotypes you THINK apply to other people and use your head.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @09:26PM (2 children)
Sigh. You keep thinking of rights as positively existing entities. They are not any more than darkness or vacuum is. They are an abstract name for the the absence of someone else's will conflicting with your own. They need no grounding because they are not an affirmative thing.
Any conscious being placed alone in an area has complete liberty (all possible rights) until another entity comes along and wishes their thoughts, speech, actions, etc... to be limited for some reason. Rights are defined when some measure of liberty is addressed that a desire to curtail it exists for. Then and only then can they potentially become the arbitrarily defined, limited subset of complete liberty that we call a "right" to be protected or surrendered.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:24AM (1 child)
Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere :) THAT is their ontological grounding. They are an epiphenomenon of who and what we as humans are, as well as our environment.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:11AM
More a product of interaction with other sentient beings, I'd say. I mean you currently have the right to spontaneously turn bright purple if you so desire. It's just not something that's likely to come up so the right itself isn't going to have its boundaries precisely defined. Or it's like "how many possible arcs are there in a circle?". There are an infinite number that are going to undefined in any given circle simply because they're not currently relevant to anything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.