[notatoad]

>it’s also that company’s responsibility

Is it? I mean legally. Obviously it’s dumb of Apple to have left this guys access open, but that doesn’t mean they actually had any legal responsibility to lock him out. As far as I understand, the law is pretty clear that you can’t access anything you’re not allowed to by policy, whether there’s a technical block or not.

[ClumsyPilot]

> that doesn’t mean they actually had any legal responsibility to lock him out

If the property owner doesn’t make bare minimum effort to protect the property

Then how much effort and money should taxpayer spend to protect and prosecute regarding the same property?

It seems strange to imply that people that own nothing must through their taxes pay for protection of property of the people who do own everything.

[Aurornis]

Crimes are crimes and must be prosecuted as such.

The phrase for what you’re doing is “victim blaming”. I don’t know what triggers some people to think this way other than a deep desire to find a contrarian take on a situation.

But no, when a person commits a crime the responsibility and accountability for committing that crime is entirely on the person who committed the crime. If you start blaming the victim or downplaying the crime based on the victim’s circumstances, you are backwards.

> It seems strange to imply that people that own nothing must through their taxes pay for protection of property of the people who do own everything

I don’t know what you think you’re implying here, but by the numbers the wealthy and corporations pay significantly more in taxes than the “people who own nothing”. Everyone should get equal protection under the law, ignoring how much they pay in taxes.

All criminals should be afraid of committing crimes equally, because crimes are crimes and society benefits when committing a crime is discouraged.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Crimes are crimes and must be prosecuted as such.

That would be nice but that is not the current situation, neither my stolen bicycle nor the fraud that caused 2008 had resulted in any arrests. Until such time that all crimes are crimes, it is a valid question.

> by the numbers the wealthy and corporations pay significantly more in taxes than the “people who own nothing”

This statement is highly misleading in three different dimensions:

Firstly, both in UK and in USA individuals pay like 5x more in income tax than corporations pay in tax. So people pay more tax and yet prosecutions against corporations are less than 1% of all prosecutions, that seems questionable.

Secondly, what is the statistics you are citing is actually saying? "Out of the people that declare income to government, those that declare the most income, pay the most tax". That's a bit self-evident, isn't it?

It does not address the claim that wealthiest people don't declare taxable income, and therefore pay little tax.

Thirdly, the measurement needs to be relative, not absolute. The claim "I pay less income tax than Facebook does' is true, but Facebook pays the effective tax rate of about 3%.

[notatoad]

i thought my comment was pretty clear that i wasn't asking what the law should be, just what the law is.

[nradov]

While it doesn't apply in this particular case, for healthcare organizations the HIPAA privacy rule implies a legal responsibility to lock out terminated employees from any access to protected health information.

[vel0city]

That doesn't absolve an employee (or ex-employee) of the covered entity going about and abusing the access they do have.