Though for the record, I would like to see AT&T lose this case, badly. If you design a system based on personal info you damn well should shoulder the liability when you screw it up.
Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable
Indeed attaching a safe securely is very expensive and depending on the architecture and room layout may be impossible.
![Bruno [Crypto Beret TM] Larvol](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1053671578238562310/6Dcewfo2_normal.jpg)
-
-
...and a safe being bolted to plywood is an expected and common hazard. A safe being glued to drywall - so weak you can literally pull it off by accident - is not an expected hazard. Thus, I'm happy for the latter to incur liability that the former doesn't.
-
But where is your personal responsibility for relying on something with poor security?
-
That's precisely my point: in the glued on scenario you have no way of knowing you're going to have poor security because of the negligence of others (arguably even fraud).
-
The hotel safe is, epistemically speaking, a presumption of guilt situation. I would not only assume the safe is glued to nothing, but that the hotel has a master key stored in a near-public place. Until proven otherwise.
-
No, even that's too optimistic. Assume the safe has a back hatch for 'customer service' which not only has a near-public key, but was accidentally left open.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.