Not Being the Nice Guy (split from Random Rants OA)

[Mise]

Black hats may use that excuse dishonestly. Do you think hobbs is using it dishonestly?

No I don't. I have no idea whether black hats actually believe that, or if they are being dishonest. I suspect that some do in fact believe that what they're doing is noble, however; that is simply the nature of trolls and "hacker" types. They often believe that what they're doing is "right"; it's self-justifying behaviour.

So what's your point? You asked me to google what white hats do, and then completely ignore what they actually do! They disclose privately, to give the company the opportunity to fix it. That is precisely the right response! Have a quiet word with the person. Don't commit yet another computer security breach by sending unauthorised emails!

 

[Lexicus]

As has already been pointed out, having a word with the person is noted to be ineffective because it doesn't actually create any consequences. And as I understand things, white hats do actually breach computer systems with poor security before having a 'private word' so I don't think your analogy works all that well.

 

[Mise]

As has already been pointed out, having a word with the person is noted to be ineffective because it doesn't actually create any consequences.

You say it's ineffective, and yet the thread started with a description of how badly this prank went wrong!

And I don't think that talking to people is ineffective. It is very effective in my experience.

Finally, you are now saying that the white hat response is ineffective, when you were the one that told me to google "white hat".

And as I understand things, white hats do actually breach computer systems with poor security before having a 'private word' so I don't think your analogy works all that well.

It's your analogy!!! And no, white hats absolutely do not breach computer systems and send unauthorised emails from it! They are very careful, in fact, not to do anything illegal or unauthorised!

Private reporting so that the company can fix it is a white hat thing. Sending unauthorised emails is a black hat thing. Publicly shaming is a black hat thing. You were the one that brought up the white hats, and now you're disavowing what they actually do!

 

[Lexicus]

You say it's ineffective, and yet the thread started with a description of how badly this prank went wrong!

I don't think characterizing it as "prank went wrong" is right, though, I think the more accurate characterization is "coworker needs to stop being such a pill"

It's your analogy!!!

Your analogy is hobbs=black hat. Mine is hobbs=white hat.

 

[Mise]

I don't think characterizing it as "prank went wrong" is right, though, I think the more accurate characterization is "coworker needs to stop being such a pill"

It was, to put it mildly, ineffective.

Your analogy is hobbs=black hat. Mine is hobbs=white hat.

And yet there's no way that white hats would use someone's computer to send unauthorised emails publicly declaring that this computer has been pwned... This is literally a black hat thing, absolute text book black hat. If this is your contention then are simply wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

And yet there's no way that white hats would use someone's computer to send unauthorised emails publicly declaring that this computer has been pwned... This is literally a black hat thing, absolute text book black hat. If this is your contention then are simply wrong.

Context matters, I guess. I think the sending of a doughnut-related email to the team is a lot more analogous to private communication with the company about their security systems. Sending an email to the boss or to a client or something would be more like publicly declaring this computer has been pwned.

 

[Hygro]

Mise owes everyone donuts.

 

[Synobun]

Mise owes everyone donuts.

Spoken like a true 12 year old.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The argument that this is a good way to "teach someone a lesson" is particularly weak, because the lesson is learnt not by positive, healthy reinforcement, but by humiliating and shaming someone. Humiliation is not, in my experience, ever a positive learning experience. I contend that the stated aim is not the true (or at least, the only) aim; it is simply to have fun at someone else's expense. This is why the "email of sexual nature" is so perverse: not only is it an attempt at humiliating a colleague, but it is an attempt to humiliate them sexually. It's just completely unacceptable in a workplace.

Well, sorry.

I spent time in the military, where humiliating and shaming is the primary go to training method, and it works really well. You may think it is inappropriate in a civilian workplace, and you might be right, but if you claim that it is ineffective you have a lot of examples to overcome.

As to the "sexually," I'm caught in a bind. The sex component was pretty much just a random offhand remark when I said it. Primarily I was looking at it from the "send an e-mail to ONE person rather than the whole group makes it easier to contain the consequences" perspective. The aftermath of the donut e-mail is that the entire group knows the person made a security breaching error, and that someone else in the group actually took advantage of it to breach security. All it takes is one commodore in the group and we could have a full blown HR investigation on our hands. They can be shamed just as well by an e-mail to one person as by sending to many, so the lesson lands without the risk of a spreading wildfire of consequences. I concede though that in the current climate including a sex component could create additional possibilities for consequences, so wasn't a good choice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It was, to put it mildly, ineffective.

Are you sure? While the explosive and inappropriate response presents its own set of problems, it seems very likely that the person will be taking their computer security more seriously in the wake of it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Has anyone actually said this?

Excuse me if I've missed something but the entire thrust of your posts have been about my actions and not on the fallout from them. It's one thing to say I was wrong but another to look over the egregious behavior that followed from it. To be fair though, a temper tantrum is probably less interesting conversation fodder than donuting but it's worth pointing out that by omission you've given the temper tantrum a pass and implicitly accepted it as an acceptable outcome for the situation.

You say it's ineffective, and yet the thread started with a description of how badly this prank went wrong!

In this instance, the OP shouldn't be taken at face value. It was intended as a steam-blowing rant in the rant thread, not a dedicated thread starting post. Because of this, I left out crucial details*. Also @Arakhor picked an odd post to start off this thread. The intent of the thread was to discuss @Commodore 's take on how to deal with non-complying coworkers (look at the thread title). His posts had sparked a lengthy discussion on just his posts but because Arakhor picked my OP as the starting point for its own thread it's reverted to just that one post as the starting point and that post isn't fully framed for discussion.

*Details - I mentioned this in another post but not in the OP but the guy in question has merrily partaken in donuting of his own. It's true that this isn't the best way to make sure people lock their computers but it was well accepted by everyone (including the tantrum thrower) in the group. That is until the tantrum thrower decided to throw a fit over it. I can't post what he said here but he was very upset. I was literally trying to apologize when he began calling (screaming, really) me a long string of obscenities. So while it's fair to point out this prank isn't the brightest thing I've ever done it's also fair to point out that just because people are snowflakes doesn't mean everyone should accommodate them or accept their tantrums.

More context - talking to people about this concern has gone nowhere. I didn't just do this on a whim to stir the pot for lols. There have been warnings and threats of recrimination if people don't get better about locking their terminals. This prank was meant to get people better about it without any real consequences. And it worked! Temper tantrum aside, people now are diligent in locking their terminals and in a couple of instances we've all gotten donuts out of it. And as far as the embarrassment of being called out for not locking terminals - those who actually delivered the donuts were hailed as heroes for the day and those who don't were just forgotten about within the day. It's funny/embarrassing for all of five minutes but unfortunately one special snowflake couldn't bear five minutes of shame and lashed out. It's worth noting that this is entirely in his personality to do - it didn't just come from nowhere - as he's been described as 'childish' by other people.

Anyways what's got me pissy about this thread is that it exists at all and that it's become a platform to excuse bad behavior. I went to delete the original post almost as soon as I posted it but it was already quoted. Then it became a thread I didn't ask or consent for and I'm too much of a snowflake myself to not answer the posts made about me or to ask for the thread to be deleted because then it looks like I'm too much of a snowflake to take the criticism.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It was, to put it mildly, ineffective.

It absolutely was not ineffective! See my above for more context that wasn't in the OP because the original rant was never meant to be a thread-starter to begin with. Terminal security way better than it was before. And the prank was loved by everyone (including the tantrum thrower) until the tantrum thrower decided to be a child about it and really it's only that one guy who had a problem with it and only because it happened to him. He was all fine and dandy doing it to everyone else.

 

[Arakhor]

For what it's worth, I split off all the relevant conversation from the Rants thread. Adding in Commodore's posts from Random Thoughts would have made the thread significantly longer.

I will however close the thread if you wish.

 

[Takhisis]

I'd agree with closing the thread. It has run its course by now.

 

[Traitorfish]

The myth of the Noble Savage is bad because nobody ever talks about how the Algonquians loved to fart and it made the Pilgrims very uncomfortable.