4 ms·
The trick is to just collect and store data at exabyte scales like Google or the NSA. That way when there's a breach, it's impractical for the attackers to exf
by rl3 11y ago
The trick is to just collect and store data at exabyte scales like Google or the NSA.
That way when there's a breach, it's impractical for the attackers to exfiltrate the complete dataset because the target probably represents a non-trivial percentage of the world's storage capacity.
The attackers can filter the data, but surely someone's going to notice ten thousand machines whirring away at odd MapReduce queries.
- Terribledactyl 11y agoLet's say all of the most sensitive data of a person can be fit in 20kb, SSN, CC, Bank, your dogs's high school's mascot's sweetheart, etc. The entire US would just about fit on a 6tb drive. The rest of the data is not that valuable in comparison.
- rl3 11y ago>your dogs's high school's mascot's sweetheart I'm not sure what that is exactly, but it sounds really sensitive. :) In all seriousness, while the release of banking and identity information is certainly bad, I'd argue the contents of private communications or browsing/search history are potentially far more damaging for a lot of people. In order to include that in your hypothetical, it'd require either a lot of filtering or the 6TB number would balloon quite a bit.
- Terribledactyl 11y ago>I'm not sure what that is exactly, but it sounds really sensitive. I was poking fun at "security" questions. These bits of data are gatekeepers, if I have your aol account password, I get all of those for free. (So I think we're in agreement, my SSN isn't controversial to my friends, employer, family, news, etc, but most people have probably had conversations or searches that could look really bad)