Music student awarded $350,000 after girlfriend stalls career | Hacker News Reader

Music student awarded $350,000 after girlfriend stalls career

montrealgazette.com

Sounds appropriate.

• Acting on a protected resource without authorization (one assumes she had read rights through receiving credentials from him, not delete rights or other rights to tamper with the data)

• Identity theft (impersonating the professor of the other school with the underfunded acceptance email)

Doubt any of these would be prosecuted given the burden of proof needed in any criminal courtroom, but the civil judgment seems to make sense.

This is the prime reason for why I never share—nor wish to receive—credentials for systems I shouldn't access. Sharing credentials exposes me. Receiving credentials burdens me in the event that something happens with the account for which I know credentials. It's best to operate with a need to know, even if it's just for plausible deniability in the event that anything goes wrong.

(Disclaimer: not an attorney, just a security/privacy lead)

>Sharing credentials exposes me. Receiving credentials burdens me in the event that something happens with the account for which I know credentials.

Sometimes it's more or less unavoidable when you're helping aging parents and have significant access to financial information anyway. (But, then, that doesn't fall under "shouldn't access.")

However, in general, yeah. Good infosec practices aside, I just don't want to be in a situation where I have niggling suspicions of someone or they have of me because something weird happened and one or the other of us had credentials to the other's systems or accounts.

What a horrible person and I imagine he'll never see a cent from her.

However, what struck me was notification via email?? True. He did (apparently) respond and they'd probably have communicated with him through other channels had they simply heard back from him. But it all seems rather casual for something like this.

Depends on the country, but likely a judgement that will follow her her entire life unless she declares bankruptcy and forfeits all her assets. He really should push aggressively to collect on that, for the rest of her life. Based on the article she really seems like a horrible person.

If she is still in Canada court decisions such as this cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

Agreed. It does seem weird not mail something along with emailing it for something that big of a deal.

Hopefully for him he can collect that $350,000.

NEVER. SHARE. PASSWORDS.

The ending is a bit weird. As if blocking on social media will make her impossible to find.

A good example of what happens you unnecessarily trust someone. Always watch out for yourself first.

Totally, the last thing you want is some sort of soulmate when you could spend you life living alone. /s

Giving someone access to your email is unnecessarily trusting someone, even your spouse in my opinion. Email is used as your identity, there's no reason to give someone that power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com