Pandan got into this situation because he wasn't careful enough. His situation is like the leaving an open convertible unattended with the keys inside. It is just begging for being taken for a joyride.
Your example discusses temptation, and how that affects division of responsibility.
If I left my phone on a ledge near my house somewhere and expected it to be there when I got back, that
would be foolhardy, knowing people. However, if I hid my phone and only told people I considered general friends where it was, that may have been more sensible. Legally, if the phone is stolen, it's stolen, regardless, but perhaps more blame could be shifted onto me in the first scenario. Now, this situation is less like a convertible or phone, but more like a case of breaking and entering.
Pandan didn't have a banner on his website saying "HACK ME" and I can bet he didn't leave the security details there either. I fail to believe that it is the fault of the owner if someone decides to invade the space of the owner and maliciously modify the files contained there. If you take a real life parable, surely that is tantamount to breaking and entering?
Regardless of whether you have locks on your house or not (or website security in this case) the person still must
go out of their way to enter, unlike the phone example.
When you see a website, you see the whole thing, like a shut window. You don't notice the lack of locks on a window from the outside, and a person must already attempt to break in to test whether you have locks on your window.
Window/phone/convertible parables aside, Zoneark is in the wrong here, regardless.
