4 ms·

'Responsibility' without any repercussions for not protecting it. Who still really believes that private companies are any better or have more responsibility t

by mhurron 10y ago

'Responsibility' without any repercussions for not protecting it. Who still really believes that private companies are any better or have more responsibility to protect your data. You want to protect your data, don't give it out.

raiyu 10y ago
Consumers vote with their wallet and if the transgression is large enough the company feels it. It's easy to get lost in the tech echo chamber where we take security seriously, but many average consumers don't. So we incorrectly associate our priorities with theres. Just take a look at Chipotle for evidence of this with the average consumer. A number of incidents of e. coli outbreaks led to sales plummeting and wiped away nearly 50% of their equity in the ensuing troubles. Though same store sales have rebounded considerably they are still off 50% and questions continue to remain. So trust me, when the consumer is affected directly in a way that they prioritize they take action and the company is definitely affected. Unfortunately many security related incidents never trickle down to the consumer in the way that an E.coli outbreak did. Just compare what happened to Chipotle for a handful of E.coli cases versus Yahoo being compromised for 1 billion users data.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > Consumers vote with their wallet Evidence shows that in the vast majority of cases (home depot, target, psn, jp morgan etc) they do no such thing. Chipotle is getting people sick, people don't like to be sick. Uber, the above mentioned breaches, and the GP were talking about their data. People don't care about that, hence companies face no real penalty for not protecting data.
  - raiyu 10y ago
    That's the point I was making. That for most consumers a security breach isn't viewed the same as an E.Coli outbreak. Although the likelihood of you catching E.Coli is less than 1% the resulting impact was huge. Meanwhile like you mentioned there have been a number of large retailers where your likelihood of having your data compromised was well over 50% and people didn't react at all.

by mhurron 10y ago

raiyu 10y ago

Consumers vote with their wallet and if the transgression is large enough the company feels it. It's easy to get lost in the tech echo chamber where we take security seriously, but many average consumers don't. So we incorrectly associate our priorities with theres. Just take a look at Chipotle for evidence of this with the average consumer. A number of incidents of e. coli outbreaks led to sales plummeting and wiped away nearly 50% of their equity in the ensuing troubles. Though same store sales have rebounded considerably they are still off 50% and questions continue to remain. So trust me, when the consumer is affected directly in a way that they prioritize they take action and the company is definitely affected. Unfortunately many security related incidents never trickle down to the consumer in the way that an E.coli outbreak did. Just compare what happened to Chipotle for a handful of E.coli cases versus Yahoo being compromised for 1 billion users data.

mhurron 10y ago
> Consumers vote with their wallet Evidence shows that in the vast majority of cases (home depot, target, psn, jp morgan etc) they do no such thing. Chipotle is getting people sick, people don't like to be sick. Uber, the above mentioned breaches, and the GP were talking about their data. People don't care about that, hence companies face no real penalty for not protecting data.
- raiyu 10y ago
  That's the point I was making. That for most consumers a security breach isn't viewed the same as an E.Coli outbreak. Although the likelihood of you catching E.Coli is less than 1% the resulting impact was huge. Meanwhile like you mentioned there have been a number of large retailers where your likelihood of having your data compromised was well over 50% and people didn't react at all.