I didn't mean to insult. I saw your comment like the defense "sure, she was driving drunk. But nobody actually got hurt!". I think it's fair (and generally for drunk driving it is the case) to treat the action at least partially from the potential harm, that was avoided due to mere luck.
I don't think it's a slippery slope to point out that it could have had unintended side effects in addition to the (for Google unwanted) intended effects.
And unlike with drunk driving, complex systems break every day from honest "oh wow, I was sure this couldn't cause an outage".
When someone has honest intentions there's no blame[1], but when someone doesn't, then yeah they are to blame for any outage it caused, and for damage that statistically would happen for every N times someone did this.
[1] including if someone bypasses an 'annoying' safety feature. Because it should be set up such that the safest way is the easiest way.
I don't think it's a slippery slope to point out that it could have had unintended side effects in addition to the (for Google unwanted) intended effects.
And unlike with drunk driving, complex systems break every day from honest "oh wow, I was sure this couldn't cause an outage".
When someone has honest intentions there's no blame[1], but when someone doesn't, then yeah they are to blame for any outage it caused, and for damage that statistically would happen for every N times someone did this.
[1] including if someone bypasses an 'annoying' safety feature. Because it should be set up such that the safest way is the easiest way.