Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
So who's responsible for this security failure?
|
Your statement:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
I know the National Party were the ones who exploited the lack of security, I'm interested in who was responsible for this security in the first place.
|
"Oh shit I was wrong as I didnt actually read OR watch the video, time to change angle or they will figure out I was blindly supporting labour":
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Visiting a URL which gives you access to your oppositions private donor information that obviously wasn't intended to be made public - is exploiting the sites lack of security (even if legal and the info was public).
|
"Fuck they've figured out I'm baselessly backing Labour, Quick time to blame someone/something else!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
I agree that that the Labour Party might have a duty of care; but wont the investigation make clearer where/how much blame should be laid? I mean do we know that a company wasn't contracted to keep the website secure?
|
"Fuck lets completely change tact. Agree ... but not completely."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Of course ultimately the buck stops with the Labour Party. But what you don't seem to understand is that in the difference between Labour being careless vs a hired legitimate IT company not doing their job properly - is a difference in what action should be taken. I.e if the latter is true, I think that firing the Party Secretary is a bit severe.
|
The goal posts .. they are a movin.
Its due to bad management/vendor/administration or all of the above .... end of the day Labour fucked up on their own website, stop trying to pass the buck, you've been doing that since the start. Thats passing responsibility onto someone else to lessen the overall fact that they fucked up "ok" was the short version.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chubby
nice sperge rage kids.
feels good to have mastery dinnit!?
|
