Nick Szabo  🔑

Nope. The gun is doing what it was designed to do, what the user knew it would do, and there are strong societal arguments for guns to exist from bigger picture freedoms.

That kind of argument is actually why I used the Petzl example: Petzl is allowing their buyers to do dangerous things by selling climbing gear that has a high chance to get them killed. And that's totally OK with adequate documentation.

Then take some basic steps to discourage 2FA! AT&T knew it was an issue, so taking some basic measures like at least asking the likes of Twitter and Coinbase to stop doing it would be reasonable. Sounds like they didn't.

If a company as big as Petzl knew their gear was being misused, and people were getting hurt in large numbers, I'd expect them to at least put out some documentation explaining why it was a bad idea. That's a low standard to hold someone too, so reasonable.

Go read some Petzl instructional manuals: pretty much all of them have examples of what *not* to do. That's a product being misused, and a concrete attempt at discouraging that misuse. I don't see AT&T doing that with 2FA.

I suspect AT&T (and others) don't do that because it'd be bad marketing to say "Hey! You're phone #'s aren't secure!" Petzl seems to have gotten over that problem, and is quite happy to warn you how you can kill yourself with their products.