4 ms·

So knowing absolutely nothing about the relevant laws of the claim, I went and looked up 18 U.S. Code § 2315. How do the claimants intend to demonstrate the val

by nness 11y ago

So knowing absolutely nothing about the relevant laws of the claim, I went and looked up 18 U.S. Code § 2315. How do the claimants intend to demonstrate the value of the stolen goods exceed the $5,000 or more test required by the law? More important, do they have to demonstrate that the value of the whole dump to be greater than $5,000 or just the value of their constituent component? I can imagine that the whole dump would pass the test, but tested individually, can their records really be worth that much?

reviseddamage 11y ago
more interestingly they will have to prove(confirm) that the dump that showed up is the real one, just in case someone pulls the parody defense.
- nness 11y ago
  I think they also have to prove that these sites actually had their information and did provide it. Otherwise they're just assuming that their information was accessible because their information was part of the dump. Likely though, since there are three claimants and three sites, I'd wager they all incidentally discovered their details (or maybe were made aware by an unhappy spouse) and that's how they know their details are actually accessible.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Were credit card numbers published? The fraudulent charges from exposure of the numbers could easily exceed $5,000 from a single plaintiff.
- nness 11y ago
  I may be wrong, but I believe the first dump only contained a month or so worth of transactions and the numbers were obfuscated. So likely not enough for credit fraud.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Even in the second dump, which contained the entire backlog of transactions, the numbers were scrubbed. The information is only a name, address, account type, and amount of transaction. All the card information has been scrubbed.
patcheudor 11y ago
In the acquisition space it's a common practice to get data valuations. I've seen individual customer records valued as high as $23 a record. Given the volume of customer data, even at the lowest possible, pennies on the dollar valuations it will easily exceed $5,000.

by nness 11y ago

reviseddamage 11y ago

more interestingly they will have to prove(confirm) that the dump that showed up is the real one, just in case someone pulls the parody defense.

nness 11y ago
I think they also have to prove that these sites actually had their information and did provide it. Otherwise they're just assuming that their information was accessible because their information was part of the dump. Likely though, since there are three claimants and three sites, I'd wager they all incidentally discovered their details (or maybe were made aware by an unhappy spouse) and that's how they know their details are actually accessible.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

Were credit card numbers published? The fraudulent charges from exposure of the numbers could easily exceed $5,000 from a single plaintiff.

nness 11y ago
I may be wrong, but I believe the first dump only contained a month or so worth of transactions and the numbers were obfuscated. So likely not enough for credit fraud.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Even in the second dump, which contained the entire backlog of transactions, the numbers were scrubbed. The information is only a name, address, account type, and amount of transaction. All the card information has been scrubbed.

patcheudor 11y ago

In the acquisition space it's a common practice to get data valuations. I've seen individual customer records valued as high as $23 a record. Given the volume of customer data, even at the lowest possible, pennies on the dollar valuations it will easily exceed $5,000.