>how did you miss the two other comments that repeated this information nearly an hour before yours?
Honestly. I respond as I read. I tend not to keep reading and then go back to respond.
>Not-with-standing that being technically correct is not what anecdotes are about in the first place.
This is more than a mere technicality. The whole issue of mens rea is that one's state of mind is a factor is how someone is judged for their actions.
Your point, even without the analogy issue, is that the reason is irrelevant. That is simply not the case. Putting a security flaw in place to give the FBI a backdoor is vastly different than putting a security flaw in place due to poor coding. You may say they are both the same in that they both compromised security, but only one of these is backdooring and the damage to one's reputation is going to be different.
Now, in this particular case, the reason isn't sufficient to warrant a different judgment. But that is because of the details of this case.
Honestly. I respond as I read. I tend not to keep reading and then go back to respond.
>Not-with-standing that being technically correct is not what anecdotes are about in the first place.
This is more than a mere technicality. The whole issue of mens rea is that one's state of mind is a factor is how someone is judged for their actions.
Your point, even without the analogy issue, is that the reason is irrelevant. That is simply not the case. Putting a security flaw in place to give the FBI a backdoor is vastly different than putting a security flaw in place due to poor coding. You may say they are both the same in that they both compromised security, but only one of these is backdooring and the damage to one's reputation is going to be different.
Now, in this particular case, the reason isn't sufficient to warrant a different judgment. But that is because of the details of this case.