|
Discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malpractice
by Anonymous
Sep 7 2003 2:58AM
I am sorry, but no. you say:
"But breaking into a facility, without their permission, and telling them how you did it is not helping the confidentiality of the records there. That is violating confidentiality. Lamo was in the position to read the personal information of other people, without proper authorization. Do we really know that he didn't?"
you seem so confused. He didnt publish any data. So you cant really say he violated any confidentiality. You said HE COULD HAVE read such and such... well, then all you can really say is HE COULD HAVE violated, blah, blah...
However, all you guys are missing a very important point. This is actually the reason why you cant seem to resolve the issue. The detractors are flatout wrong, and the defenders are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
What he actually achieved (whether he wanted it or not) is to DEFEND!! the rights of the people who´s information was VERY IMPROPERLY secured. If I was one of those informants of the NYT I believe I deserve! to know!! that my records could have been stolen. You (the writer of the previous post), better than anyone, should know that if Lamo was able to do that, then your average black hat could have done that too. If it hadnt been for Lamo, or Lamo-like people, we would never had any tangible evidence of the NYT (or any other big corp) incompetence. The Lamo version that secretly talks to the NYT and lets them know of the security flaw quitely, is cynically ignoring the fact that the real damage is done to the people who´s information was not taken seriously enough to protect.
The NYT should be thankfull? FREAK! the NYT ... they betrayed the trust of the people who´s information they promised to protect!! If my name was on the NYT systems, _I_ would be thankfull to Lamo. I now have evidence with which to take a smarter decision next time I should choose to trust the NYT (or your favorite Corp).
I can not believe you (the writer) can be so cynical!! Lamo has actually told the PEOPLE! of the hospital!! (nevermind the NYT, they should be worryed about their stupidity) that their records are not safe in there!! and that they should switch hospitals... you talk about morals. Where is the morality of a person that sees that the records of the people in the hospital are up for the grabs, and does nothing (because he was not hired to do so) or WORSE! goes to the hospital, tells the manager secretly, and DEPRIVES the people from the hospital the information that their doctors are NOT TRUSTFULL???
you should really check again on your morality concepts.
The truth is that the NYT is the one that messed up. And Lamo did the lesser bad. Because it would have been worse to do any of the alternatives: do nothing because he was not hired to do so, or secretly talking to the NYT, and actually becoming an accomplice of the big corp lies to the people.
As far as the NYT, fudge them. They should not be thankfull, they should be in jail. isnt negligence punishable? If a doctor promises you that he is going to extract a tumor out of you, but goes drunk to your surgery and extracts your brain, or worse lets your brain open so that others can steal it, isnt that punishable too? isnt that malpractice??
that is actually a good (sarcasm intended, the right word there is "inmoral") strategy. Next time a med student points out a malpractice from a big fat rich doctor to one of his patients, what the old rich doctor is to do, is try as hard as he can, to demostrate that the med student could have done a lot of damage, and in fact, has violated the law, for giving medical advice without being properly licensed ... or worse, because NO ONE asked him to...
yiacks.
[ Reply ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Discussion Closed ]
|
