Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does reasonable steps imply "prevent all bad actors in all cases"? of course not, that's an incredibly uncharitable reading of "reasonable", not even an intelligence agency would set such an impossible standard. keep in mind this whole thread started with a comment about "what if your brother googles something bad as a prank?" I'm literally just talking about setting a password that isn't "password" and locking the…
Because this argument is tone deaf and ignores that kids are, well, kids . Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids , and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here. These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon the…
> Actual adults have terrible security practices. Are you seriously trying to hold kids, who had no choice in the matter, to the same security standards? They’re kids, and likely won’t even understand the gravity of the situation we’re discussing here.
> These aren’t grown adults working at a company. They’re kids who had laptops foisted upon them.
this is my point. I'm not holding the kids to any standard; I'm just saying this is a fundamental precondition to being entrusted with an account at an organization. if it's not reasonable to expect this of them, the school should not be issuing computers/accounts. the ultimate responsibility absolutely lies with the school.