This isn’t a “hack” and isn’t necessarily indicative of a church run by people who don’t understand internet security. It’s a malicious person taking advantage of a group that hosts gatherings that are designed to be open to all.
If someone ran into a church basement to interrupt an AA meeting or a Bible Study group and started flinging poo at people then it would be dumb to say “the people hosting that meeting clearly don’t understand basic security, otherwise they wouldn’t have left the door unlocked.” The door was left open on PURPOSE.
Apparently it is so hard to Not be a jerk, than even elected Republican leaders are, basically, all assholes who are acting that way even though they (hopefully?) know better.
No, that’s no excuse for them to act that way - but a large portion* of our country seems to a) be ok with their behavior, and b) often mimic their behavior.
Judging by evert “open America” protest, those leaders are setting quite an example.
*Hopefully not an ‘electoral college majority’ portion.
My point was that the person who did this was not a congress person or the president, and yet they felt the need to do something terrible to someone else, probably for the lulz. Plenty of people voted for teh current president, because they’d “stick it to” the people who don’t look like them. Because they see those of us who don’t look like them as subhuman. I’m a subhuman, being a woman and all.
I’m just sick of feeling like my humanity is irrelevant.
There have to be at least as many zoom meetings as there are humans on earth right now. even if you’re spamming, why target this one? And with enough motivation to fucking track down and shuttle child porn. I would guess that this is someone known to the church.
What are you trying to say? That it’s ok for someone to zoombomb with potential child porn because they deserved it? That the perpetrator should use this as a defence? That Zoom’s security is “good enough” that the “common man” should know better so, meh, no need to do any more?
The person who is responsible for disrupting the meeting is the person who did the disrupting Full stop. The dude who walks into your front door and masturbates on your couch because you left the door open doesn’t get to argue that the door was open so the family should have known he’d be there masturbating when they got home.
I think the point of this and similar comments is being missed.
First, no one is saying this was a proper, legal, acceptable, or even tolerable behavior. It wasn’t. However, to use your analogy, if you had a party and invited everyone…everyone, no screening of any kind, and someone started masturbating on the couch, it seems like a fair question to ask, “Who let this guy in?” Or, “Why did you invite everyone and not think someone with less that good intentions might show up?”
It is not the only question to ask, or action to take, but it is not an unreasonable one. And it certainly isn’t an endorsement of the behavior.
Anyone can use the roads. It is unfortunate reality that, at some point, we could encounter someone who shouldn’t. So, we wear seat belts. We also only give people we trust the opportunity to come into our homes and don’t have open online meetings.
