You're stretching what I'm saying totally out of proportion here.
A woman is not responsible for dressing modestly.
A teacher is absolutely responsible for keeping private materials, such as grades, secured according to reasonable practices.
If I leave a bike unlocked in a public place, I can expect it'll get stolen. Although I'm the "victim" here, I'm also partially responsible for failing to secure it properly.
If I have locked bike stolen, then I'm a victim, I did everything reasonable expected to secure my property.
You are victim blaming! Bikers who leave their bike unlocked do NOT deserve those bikes to be stolen!
They made a mistake. But the criminal remains a criminal. A thief who steals an unlocked bike has committed a crime JUST as heinous as a criminal who steals a locked bike. The level of effort is much lower, but the crime is one and the same.
Similarly, our discussion is with regards to this kid who gained unauthorized access to a computer. Granted, this "unauthorized" access was laughably weak amount of security, but it is still victim blaming to offload the blame from the criminal (ie: the kid).
So someone who ignorantly walks off a cliff is a victim? Someone who was electrocuted by a hairdryer in a bathtub despite knowing the risks? Someone who failed to secure a firearm and was shot by their dog?
People have a certain amount of responsibility they are expected to assume. If they fail in this responsibility they may end up victims but they are not entirely blameless. I'm not saying they have to lead flawless lives or take every precaution imaginable, but failing to apply basic common sense introduces some degree of blame.
You seem to think that victims are always, without exception, innocent of the events that lead up to their situation. It would be victim blaming if they had taken reasonable precautions. They didn't. You're victim sainting here.
I'm not suggesting the kid is without blame, but they're not 100% at fault either. A more secure password, which is to be expected when dealing with sensitive data, would have avoided all of this. Then the student would have had to actually hack the account.
I also find it laughable that changing wallpaper makes someone a victim. Can we reserve that term for when actual harm was caused?
If anything this kid has ended up the victim in all of this. A felony is a tough thing to shake.
> If anything this kid has ended up the victim in all of this. A felony is a tough thing to shake.
Good thing this kid doesn't have a felony on his record. He has a felony charge, one that the Police were planning to drop pre-trial. That is a very different thing.
> I also find it laughable that changing wallpaper makes someone a victim. Can we reserve that term for when actual harm was caused?
Okay then, first you recognize that the kid's permanent record wasn't harmed by the police. Then I'll recognize that the teacher wasn't harmed either. The majority of damage to this kid's reputation was done by the newspaper when they wantonly published the kid's name.
They failed in their responsibility. They are not 100% to blame here, but they are not a "victim" like you paint them to be.