5 ms·

>If a company is willfully negligent I agree with a lot of the points in this post, but I think it's important to remove 'willfully' from this statement. If a

>If a company is willfully negligent I agree with a lot of the points in this post, but I think it's important to remove 'willfully' from this statement. If a company takes on this type of power and responsibility, it should not matter whether their negligence was willful.

throwaway2016a 9y ago
My implication is that on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being completely unaccountable that companies that are willfully negligent should be at 10. I'm not arguing that that companies who are accidentally negligent should be at 0. If I pre-meditate to purposely use my car to kill someone that is a different crime than if I am driving following all the rules of the road and I don't notice the person crossing the street until it is too late.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  I understand. I just disagree. I don't think the car analogy is apt, because it doesn't capture the inherit risk (to so many) that these companies accept. They willfully accept that risk - when data breaches are inevitable. I'm saying they should both be 10.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    There is something similar with cars, actually. In many countries, when you injure a pedestrian through absolutely no fault of your own (i. e. they drunkenly stumbled onto the street and you had no time to react), you (or your insurance) are still liable for damages. Why is that? Because when you drive a car, you get all the benefits of, well, driving. Pedestrians get absolutely nothing, except the "chance" to suffer whenever they don't pay enough attention. Note that this is civil law. If you had no chance to avoid the accident, nobody is blaming you, nor will you face criminal charges. But the pedestrian suffered damages, and cash transfers can (re-)distribute those damages to more accurately represent what would be considered "fair".
- acdha 9y ago
  I’d largely leave that to the courts: judges assess degrees of intention and responsibility all the time and generally do a good job with the flexibility. Simply knowing that you can be sued and no TOS can prevent that would be a huge improvement. It’d tell everyone that they need to think seriously about security & privacy, and the costs would push many companies to question whether they should be storing as much data as they possibly can.

throwaway2016a 9y ago

My implication is that on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being completely unaccountable that companies that are willfully negligent should be at 10. I'm not arguing that that companies who are accidentally negligent should be at 0. If I pre-meditate to purposely use my car to kill someone that is a different crime than if I am driving following all the rules of the road and I don't notice the person crossing the street until it is too late.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
I understand. I just disagree. I don't think the car analogy is apt, because it doesn't capture the inherit risk (to so many) that these companies accept. They willfully accept that risk - when data breaches are inevitable. I'm saying they should both be 10.
- matt4077 9y ago
  There is something similar with cars, actually. In many countries, when you injure a pedestrian through absolutely no fault of your own (i. e. they drunkenly stumbled onto the street and you had no time to react), you (or your insurance) are still liable for damages. Why is that? Because when you drive a car, you get all the benefits of, well, driving. Pedestrians get absolutely nothing, except the "chance" to suffer whenever they don't pay enough attention. Note that this is civil law. If you had no chance to avoid the accident, nobody is blaming you, nor will you face criminal charges. But the pedestrian suffered damages, and cash transfers can (re-)distribute those damages to more accurately represent what would be considered "fair".
acdha 9y ago
I’d largely leave that to the courts: judges assess degrees of intention and responsibility all the time and generally do a good job with the flexibility. Simply knowing that you can be sued and no TOS can prevent that would be a huge improvement. It’d tell everyone that they need to think seriously about security & privacy, and the costs would push many companies to question whether they should be storing as much data as they possibly can.