Serious security thinkers evaluate according to factors of likelihood,
impact, mitigation cost etc.
A car is a dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a group of
giddy kids, maybe drunk or way too high to drive. The likelihood of
someone getting seriously injured or killed by joyriding is high.
It's really high. And there's no mitigation to a dead child. The
penalty? A very firm "please don't do that again!"
But then a kid like Aaron Swartz downloads some files and gets nine
felony counts totalling 50 years in jail and a $1 million fine.
A justice system with these values has no concept of risk and
proportionality and is beneath contempt.
> especially in the hands of a group of giddy kids
Also the scenario where it's being used as a disposable battering-ram to smash into a store. (As you might expect, those are the stolen cars with lesser potential resale value.)
Absolutely. And let's bring risk into this.
Security risks are not born equal.
Serious security thinkers evaluate according to factors of likelihood, impact, mitigation cost etc.
A car is a dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a group of giddy kids, maybe drunk or way too high to drive. The likelihood of someone getting seriously injured or killed by joyriding is high. It's really high. And there's no mitigation to a dead child. The penalty? A very firm "please don't do that again!"
But then a kid like Aaron Swartz downloads some files and gets nine felony counts totalling 50 years in jail and a $1 million fine.
A justice system with these values has no concept of risk and proportionality and is beneath contempt.