It Is You, Not Me!

Let’s picture this. A couple living in a picturesque small countryside village where everybody knows everybody, left their front door unlocked whilst waiting for a neighbour in the back garden for afternoon tea. Then, in that short space of time, they were burgled. However, fortunately, the thieves were caught on their way out by the neighbour who arrived just in time. The neighbour asked the thieves why they were in possession of the goods not belonging to them. The thieves replied. “ We are not guilty. It’s not our fault that these couple left the front door open, making it ridiculously easy to get access to their things.” Do you agree with what the thieves said? I just hope not.

Now, below is the direct quotation from the TechCrunch’s article, explaining and defending their decision to publish some of the twitter’s corporate documentations as they believe, is in public’s interest. These documentations were given by someone who hacked into Twitter.

“It’s not our fault that Google has a ridiculously easy way to get access to accounts via their password recovery question. It’s not our fault that Twitter stored all of these documents and sensitive information in the cloud and had easy-to-guess passwords and recovery questions.”

In the case of the couple’s story, there certainly is the element of ‘carelessness’ in the couple’s notion of security. However, shouldn’t we be sad that we are living in a world one where we have to constantly watch our backs, treat strangers with suspicion and greet people through the peephole or behind the door chain? Well, I am. I am not trying to be idealistic and unrealistic here. I sadly have to accept the human behaviours that harms oneself and others such as thieving and hacking. It is a sad fact of our lives. However, just because it is common and widely acknowledged behaviour, that does not justify wrong doings nor any right to blame the victims.

Worryingly, TechCrunch is saying that we, the public is to be blamed for using Google or Twitter whose security issues are problematic. Consequently, the hackers can access and distribute our data in these services as long as the hackers can justify the publication of data that is in 'the interest of the general public'. Basically, it is saying that it is our fault and not the hackers.

Let’s picture this again. There is a couple whose house is secured by a system designed by a reputable company. However, the burglar figured out the way to bypass the security system and stole valuable goods from the couple’s home. Is TechCrunch saying that it is the home security company’s fault for designing the security systems that was cracked and also the couple’s for using that systems?

In here, I only have extracted one paragraph from TecCrunch article, however the case becomes much more complicated. They are trying to distrance themselves from the hacker and the ways in which the documents were obtained. However, if TecCrunch is trying to claim and use the same law that protects 'traditional' journalists, I would expect a more responsible attitude from TecCrunch than 'it is you, not me' sort of response.