The straw man strikes again
In which case you would no doubt welcome a mandatory life driving ban for the first speeding offence.
No, come on. I have not suggested anything of the kind. That is a disingenous suggestion. I've commented earlier on the treatment of 'misdemeanours'. Driving is a bad example in any case, because it's licensed conduct and the licence can be withdrawn/suspended.
The discussion on spent convictions is not about bans, and I'm trying to suggest a balance between licencing everything, universal background checks and the kind of creeping social credit score approach of the CCP, with maintaining trust in society and managing risks of recidivism.
What people with the mindset you describe never seems to understand is that *it is not a zero-sum game*
Be honest, you mean me. I am a person with this mindset, surely, in your view. Sure, some aspects of life are a 'zero-sum game'. Whether games are zero-sum is no moral judgement. To the extent that societies are constructed by trading off total freedom of conduct on one side with the protection from harmful conduct on the other, I guess you could consider that a zero-sum game.
As a small-l liberal and pluralist, I'm for the maximum possible freedom of action, but that's tempered with the need to impose some fairly basic and frankly not at all onerous responsibilities on all members, to not harm others. For convenience and predictibility, some are kind of arbitrary, like which side of the road you drive on. There is no right or wrong, only right or left and the main thing is to agree which.
Also as a practical matter, there must be some mechanism to address failure to carry out the responsibilities, proportional to the harm done and risk of further harm. Reasonable people can can and do disagree about the balance of interests between those that fail and their victims (or potential victims). If that's what you meant by 'zero sum game' mindset, I think that's not true of mine. I'm not just arguing more strongly for 'the rest' in this case, but for a better approach to discrimination and bias against those that fail, as well as better risk management for the rest. I've also argued elsewhere for other reforms that would shrink the area where a responsibility exists and legal sanctions apply (e.g. drug possession).
Also, I'm not sure what an ordinary member of the public actually needs protecting from in this case.
See my reply to your other comment above about the particular trust needed in IT practitioners for them to work effectively. In this particular case, the members of the public who are the other employees or customers of Jet2 whose work with or business with Jet2 would have been disrupted by the hack (if it hadn't been mitigated by the other admin).