What's even funnier is getting upset about people not wearing helmets the second you hear about an accident, with no idea whether people did or did not wear helmets. All the article says is that "the hacker entered using valid credentials." There's no information about how they got the credentials.
Victim blaming is a form of self soothing. If you can get yourself to believe they deserved it, then you avoid feeling that the world is dangerous and you might get hurt too.
There's victim-blaming, and there's gross incompetence.
My own problem with the top-level comment wasn't that it claimed fault on the part of the victims, it's that it didn't substantiate why that claim of fault was applicable in this case.
Multiple use of weak passwords in a critical system isn't acceptable in 2026 (nor has it been for many decades), and yet there's credible evidence (as my own follow-ups in this subthread and my own top-level comments should indicate) that the victims here did contribute significantly to their own harm. For that they should be found accountable. Hosting inherently insecure data systems is gross negligence, quite arguably criminal.
You can downvote all you want, but there were actual admin accounts with the password P@ssw0rd. So in your view incompetence should just be ignored because blaming people for lack of common sense will hurt their feelings?
Nope. I said that a crime is still a crime, even if the target should know better, in a response to a now flagged comment that was arguing that the criminals were in the right.
You somehow twisted that into "incompetence should just be ignored because blaming people for lack of common sense will hurt their feelings" which is such a ridiculous strawman that you're either arguing in bad faith or you've completely lost all ability to do even the most basic of reading and reasoning.
If so, point to references. Otherwise your original comment reads as unsubstantive. Tropes and cliches may have value because they're often true, but if true, in this case, then share that fact and not the trope alone.
I'll never forget this one video. A cyclist riding with a helmet on was doing everything proper -- helmeted, obeying traffic laws, riding in the proper part of the road...
Then a city bus passes them far too close. The passenger side mirror of the bus catches the rider's helmet and speeds off...carrying the cyclist off of their bike and dangling by their helmet at speed...
What's even funnier is getting upset about people not wearing helmets the second you hear about an accident, with no idea whether people did or did not wear helmets. All the article says is that "the hacker entered using valid credentials." There's no information about how they got the credentials.
Victim blaming is a form of self soothing. If you can get yourself to believe they deserved it, then you avoid feeling that the world is dangerous and you might get hurt too.
There's victim-blaming, and there's gross incompetence.
My own problem with the top-level comment wasn't that it claimed fault on the part of the victims, it's that it didn't substantiate why that claim of fault was applicable in this case.
Multiple use of weak passwords in a critical system isn't acceptable in 2026 (nor has it been for many decades), and yet there's credible evidence (as my own follow-ups in this subthread and my own top-level comments should indicate) that the victims here did contribute significantly to their own harm. For that they should be found accountable. Hosting inherently insecure data systems is gross negligence, quite arguably criminal.
You can downvote all you want, but there were actual admin accounts with the password P@ssw0rd. So in your view incompetence should just be ignored because blaming people for lack of common sense will hurt their feelings?
Nope. I said that a crime is still a crime, even if the target should know better, in a response to a now flagged comment that was arguing that the criminals were in the right.
You somehow twisted that into "incompetence should just be ignored because blaming people for lack of common sense will hurt their feelings" which is such a ridiculous strawman that you're either arguing in bad faith or you've completely lost all ability to do even the most basic of reading and reasoning.
In this specific case? Documented?
If so, point to references. Otherwise your original comment reads as unsubstantive. Tropes and cliches may have value because they're often true, but if true, in this case, then share that fact and not the trope alone.
https://spear.cx/Thread-Selling-RO-Thy-arss-shall-be-spanked...
and click on the links in the article - they are screenshots from inside the system.
Like this one for example: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iZc93XfViOk7izusgIG1ni7Kmsx...
To answer your question: yes, in this specific case, documented.
1 reply →
But you still get fined if you don't wear a helmet
In an ideal world, even before you crash your motorcycle and hit your head somewhere, forcing you to start wearing it
I'll never forget this one video. A cyclist riding with a helmet on was doing everything proper -- helmeted, obeying traffic laws, riding in the proper part of the road...
Then a city bus passes them far too close. The passenger side mirror of the bus catches the rider's helmet and speeds off...carrying the cyclist off of their bike and dangling by their helmet at speed...
Freak accidents occur everywhere. Helmets save a lot more lives then causee deaths overall.
2 replies →
I will never forget your description of the video :(