3 ms·

I strongly dislike the credit agencies as much as the next person but I have to ask: Guilty of what? Just because something you don't like happened doesn't mea

I strongly dislike the credit agencies as much as the next person but I have to ask: Guilty of what? Just because something you don't like happened doesn't mean someone goes to jail. This is the hard but important idea you have to learn in a civilized nation. Bad stuff happens, and you don't just get revenge on whoever is nearby. This was a crime entirely perpetrated by another party. You don't get to transfer their guilt onto someone who may have been reasonably diligent. Now the issue on aggregating the data in the first place is another conversation.

solomatov 9y ago
> Guilty of what? In US we have a lot of what's called regulatory crimes. For example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d%E2%80%936 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d%E2%80%936 Similar laws can be created to deter people from violating privacy of financial information. We can call what's happened a negligent disclosure financial information.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  GP mentioned that > This was a crime entirely perpetrated by another party. I think I didn't make myself clear. I, personally, do not think the people who actually exploited the vulnerability should be the main target of any law enforcement investigation. What I want to build are strong incentives to ensure that vulnerable data is as secure as possible. Unless the pressure goes to the top, this will not happen. This means that it is not enough to find a scapegoat in mid-management who might not have much of a say in how things run. I don't even hate credit rating agencies. If the CEO and the board go to prison (or a slightly less desirable outcome if they don't and we get strong regulations to make sure people do in any such future incidents) will make the rating agencies stronger. They will be able to go to investors and say look, we have to do things this way and it won't hurt your bottom line because everyone else has to follow the same regulation as well! It is just the cost of doing business. If they disagree, they are more than welcome to go to prison themselves for anything that happens.
  - tsunamifury 9y ago
    You are victim blaming and should take a hard look at your thinking.

solomatov 9y ago

> Guilty of what? In US we have a lot of what's called regulatory crimes. For example, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d%E2%80%936 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1320d%E2%80%936 Similar laws can be created to deter people from violating privacy of financial information. We can call what's happened a negligent disclosure financial information.

thanksgiving 9y ago
GP mentioned that > This was a crime entirely perpetrated by another party. I think I didn't make myself clear. I, personally, do not think the people who actually exploited the vulnerability should be the main target of any law enforcement investigation. What I want to build are strong incentives to ensure that vulnerable data is as secure as possible. Unless the pressure goes to the top, this will not happen. This means that it is not enough to find a scapegoat in mid-management who might not have much of a say in how things run. I don't even hate credit rating agencies. If the CEO and the board go to prison (or a slightly less desirable outcome if they don't and we get strong regulations to make sure people do in any such future incidents) will make the rating agencies stronger. They will be able to go to investors and say look, we have to do things this way and it won't hurt your bottom line because everyone else has to follow the same regulation as well! It is just the cost of doing business. If they disagree, they are more than welcome to go to prison themselves for anything that happens.
- tsunamifury 9y ago
  You are victim blaming and should take a hard look at your thinking.