That’s exactly what’s being argued. Many here seem to think Keys was overpunished. Do you know what it’s called when a point is being debated and you assume your opinion is correct without offering any argument or considering anyone else’s?
Again, why should I believe that?
That would be the sysadmin who should have revoked Keys’ privileges when he left the company. That guy should not have allowed Keys to have credentials that he was not supposed to have.
In that case, it could be argued that you were negligent for not returning a physical object that belonged to the company and not you.
In Keys’ case, there was no physical object, and no need to tell anyone at the company his username and password – there’s no physical object involved, so the onus is on the sysadmin.
Arguments by analogy only have force if the analogy isn’t different in important ways from the situation it’s being compared to.
