I make no such assumption. Rather, I start from the assumption that in many scenarios, they cannot be reasoned with in any useful capacity. However, to assume that the treatment of any organization, which is necessarily comprised of individuals operating within a structure, should be completely black and white is a foolish approach. Likewise, unilateral action of any kind taken in support of or against any such organization without understanding the precise workings of the body in question is likely to be judged by history as foolish at best, suboptimal in the middle ground, and disastrous at worst.

In short, this video sums it up.

It matters if your objective is to figure out why things are the way they are, in the interest of figuring out how to change those things. History is replete with cases of people trying to effect change by attacking problems from angles that represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the contributing factors involved, with accordingly hilarious or disastrous results, depending on your perspective.

Stay thirsty, my friend.

Indeed, the expression "follow the money" comes to mind.

Every now and then I like to call the business being advertised in that manner, and point out comments like the GP. It's good for a laugh.

And I see you're a fucking idiot. Did you actually read what I wrote? Hey man, you're free to like whatever you want. Likewise, I'm free to say you've got an awful sense of humor, or that you're just a fucking jackass.

Man, it's actually people like you that better fit the "ultra sensitives" mold. I'm a little too old and have seen a little too much shit to fit that category myself. Go cry somewhere else.

I don't think rape is funny in any context. If you do, I think there's something wrong with you. There's a difference between dryly/wryly stated cause and effect speculations based on the likely outcome of certain scenarios, and actually thinking the act of rape is amusing. I really hope you don't think it is amusing.

I don't view this is a morality play. I simply said it isn't funny, and I meant what I said. On the morality bit, you might be surprised to learn that I don't believe in black and white absolutes of morality either. In my experience, it really is all a matter of perspective, painted in shades of gray.

While others may certainly feel differently, I draw the humor line at the point where lots of real people lose their jobs and see their lives wrecked because of acts like this. I'm not saying Murdoch is guilty of this (I don't believe that's been proven yet), and I'm not saying the other side is innocent or blameless either. I'm simply saying I don't think the situation, on the whole, is funny.

I'm absolutely certain that this is not the only business that does this kind of thing, which makes it even less funny. Hint: over the years I've known and worked with people on both sides of the pen testing "game." In other words, people with hats of many colors.

Mr. Burns is funny, which has value. This is not funny.

Congratulations, you're the first commenter in this story to demonstrate Godwin's law. Enjoy the results.

It really doesn't usually work that way in practice, at least not for certain types of materials that, while they may "only" be classified Secret, tend to be treated somewhat differently by default. A fair amount of stuff could be described in that manner. While it's true that Secret material isn't the sort of stuff that represents the end of the world if a security incident happens with said material, the level of safeguarding that is insisted upon at most facilities is significantly higher than many people might expect.

This is the sort of thing that falls into the category of "nobody ever got fired for being more careful than he had to be," and thus again, things work differently in practice. As an interesting side effect, you might think people couldn't get fired for incidents whereby materials were technically handled according to regulations, but when things go wrong, it happens anyhow.