3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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".