Originally Posted by Iceman23
Common sense? Why wouldn't they put in place greater security measures?
That's a rediculous argument. You "support" them but yet are against their fundamental MO. Your analogy is fail as well, do you really believe the robber gives a darn whether they fix the security in the future? Nope. Neither do these guys. You're blind if you can't see that.
If I forget to lock the door and some of my stuff gets stolen, was it my fault? If I padlock the door and someone breaks in and steals my stuff, was it my fault? If I put 20 padlocks and an alarm system on my door and someone breaks in and steals my stuff, was it my fault? In each case I didn't have adequate security. Does that mean the robber should be able to continue his actions?
False analogy is false. You're comparing apples and oranges. A properly secured site cannot
be penetrated, unlike the "padlock" which is a physical destroyable thing. Proof? How many government hackers are trying to hack into lulz site and server? Any luck so far? None.
Also, even if you were to use the analogy, the current security of most companies would be analogous to leaving your things out on the street and then complaining they got taken. Not even close to leaving the door open, let alone padlocking. A bloody SQL injection? I could teach a 10 year old to do that lame thing. In fact I have taught my 12 year old nephew to do it
(granted he doesn't understand the concepts behind it)
And please, do try and actually argue the points I make instead of only replying with "fancy" words like "convoluted" in order to avoid having to make a decent counter-argument.