Compromise

Compromise (pronounced kom-pruh-mahyz)

(1) A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles etc by reciprocal modification of demands.

(2) The result of such a settlement.

(3) Something intermediate between different things:

(4) An endangering, especially of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion.

(5) To expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal etc; to jeopardize; to be placed in such a position (usually as "compromising" or "compromised") and applied particularly to "hacked" electronic devices.

(6) To bind by bargain or agreement.

(7) To make a dishonorable or shameful concession

(8) To prejudice unfavorably (obsolete).

(9) Mutually to pledge (obsolete).

1400–1450: Late Middle English borrowed from the Anglo-French compromise, from the Middle French compromise From the Old French compromis.  Root was the Medieval Latin comprōmissum (a joint promise to abide by an arbiter's decision) from comprōmittere (to make a mutual promise).  Construct was com (together) + prōmittere (to promise).  The most common modern sense of "a coming to terms" is from extension to the settlement itself and dates from the late fifteenth century.  The other meanings followed and there’s some variation in use within the English speaking world, it being a word which, depending on context, can imply something positive, neutral or negative so it needs to be considered in a cultural context.  During the Anglo-Irish negotiations in the 1990s which (at least to an extent) ended the "troubles", London learned the word "compromise" (which they thought something positive in the sense of "give & take to reach resolution) was vested in Ireland with the sense of "surrender".  Quickly, the texts were changed.  Compromise is a noun & verb, compromiser & compromisation are nouns, compromised & compromising are verbs & adjectives, compromisable is an adjective and compromisedly is an adverb; the common noun plural is compromises.  The most frequently seen derived form is uncompromising

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Compromise is close to inevitable in human interaction; those with the luxury of enjoying an uncompromising life are rare.  The concept was in 1943 explained by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal (1893-1945; later Viscount Portal of Hungerford, Chief of the Air Staff 1940-1945) when discussing the allocation of finite resources between a military operation the British wished to undertake and one they were compelled by an earlier agreement to conduct in concert with the Americans: “We are in the position of the man writing his will who wishes to leave as much as possible to his mistress but for reasons of respectability must leave enough to his wife as would be thought honorable”.

Strictly speaking, not all hacked devices are merely "comprised"; for some it's worse.

The now familiar use of compromise in the field of cybersecurity as a blanket term to cover in general the hacking of devices needs some nuance.  The use draws from the earlier idea of people “being compromised” or “placed in a compromising position” by some act, the implication being that while life goes on, their situation has changed in that they’re now in a kind of “middle ground” between life as normal and consequences much worse.  Some hacking activity is designed to induce something similar: the device continues to function, often without the user being aware anything nefarious having happened but they may suffer the consequences.  The user’s device is thus in a state of vulnerability, a “middle ground” between it functioning normally and securely and total inaccessibility or failure.  For that reason, it’s really not correct to suggest “ransomware” attacks which completely disable system are “compromised”; it’s beyond that.  Despite that, the term seems to have become the standard term to describe the state of a hacked device, whatever might be details.

The Missouri Compromise

It’s a quirk more of history than language that in popular use, it’s the Mason-Dixon Line rather than the one drawn in The Missouri Compromise which symbolizes the cultural boundary between North and South in the United States, a thing explained probably by the Mason-Dixon Line coming first, thus gaining linguistic & cultural critical mass.  The Mason-Dixon Line is the official demarcation defining the boarders of what would become the US states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia (which was until 1863 attached to Virginia).  The line was determined by a survey undertaken between 1763-1767 by two English astronomers Charles Mason (1728–1786) & Jeremiah Dixon (1733–1779), commissioned because the original land grants issued by Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) and Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) were contradictory, something not untypical given the often outdated and sometimes dubious maps then in use.  Later, "Mason-Dixon Line" would enter the popular imagination as the border between "the North" and "the South" (and thus "free" & "slave" states) because the line, west of Delaware, marked the northern limit of slavery in the United States.  Even though the later abolition of slavery in some areas rendered the line less of a strict delineation for this purpose, both phrase and implied meaning endured.

The Missouri Compromise line, although representing a much clearer geographic correlation to slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War, never entered the language in the same way as "south of the Mason-Dixon Line".

The Missouri Compromise was the legislation passed in 1820 to admit as states of the United States (1) the free state of Maine and (2) the salve state of Missouri, thus preserving the balance of power between North and South in the senate.  A part of the law was that slavery was prohibited north of the 36°30′ parallel, excluding Missouri and this extension of the Mason-Dixon Line became the Missouri Compromise line.  Controversial even at the time, there were predictions a formal division along sectional lines would institutionalize the political divide and might lead to conflict.  Although effectively repealed in the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1857, those warnings would, within a generation, be realized in the US Civil War (1861-1865).