4 ms·

One problem is that the law significantly changed right under their noses. I don't think that they have either a significant development team/effort for their p

• dmitriid 8y ago
  > law significantly changed right under their noses. You mean two years to comply before it went into effect. + over 10 years of similar local laws. "right under their noses" my ass
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Ah, the old a-planet-full-of-media-attention variety of right under their noses.
  • ahje 8y ago
    Even if it had changed right under their noses, that would still be OK in my book. The Lawmakers are elected by the people (somewhat -- the EU could be more democratic, but that's a different topic), and they should therefore be able to change the laws on the behalf of the people.
• CathyWest 8y ago
  That would have been a reasonable argument if they were found to have been using something like DES-based crypt(3) to hash their passwords. But they didn't, they were just plain text.
• swish_bob 8y ago
  Even setting aside the years they had to become compliant, it still wasn't a good idea to store passwords in plain text before GDPR.
  • GordonS 8y ago
    Regardless of the law, it's completely irresponsible to store passwords in plaintext, and it's been widely considered so for decades - the company's behavior here is inexcusable, and I really can't understand why anyone would try to defend it.