5 ms·

Why is Equifax in business still? I don't get it. A company like Bear Sterns got "killed", Enron and others got litigated out. But it looks like Equifax did no

Why is Equifax in business still? I don't get it. A company like Bear Sterns got "killed", Enron and others got litigated out. But it looks like Equifax did not face any consequences. Its high time we treat data as an asset class and regulate accordingly. Particularly personal information is acquired by every company and is treated as a valuable commodity. Companies get acquired purely for the amoutn of data they have. The market has already declared it as an asset why is it not regulated?

harryh 8y ago
Bears Sterns was acquired by JP Morgan when it was under financial duress. Enron went out of business due to losing an enormous amount of money. Neither of these things had much to do with government regulation.
- dopamean 8y ago
  You could argue that deregulation played a significant role in the fiascos that brought down both of those companies.
- yalogin 8y ago
  The analogy was that Equifax lost all of its assets and then some. It failed in the only job it had, protecting users' data, its only asset. It lost credibility and could be argued that its name became toxic. Its very similar to Bear Sterns and Enron, IMO
  - harryh 8y ago
    They didn't lose them. They still have them. They just let someone else make a copy. That didn't make the copy that Equifax still has any less valuable. Keeping that data secret isn't the only job it has. In fact that isn't even really their primary job. Their primary job is evaluating the credit worthiness of potential customers for equifax clients. As far as I know, they are still doing that job quite well.
  - g051051 8y ago
    It didn't "lose" anything, nor is "protecting users' data" it's only job, nor is that data their only asset. It certainly lost credibility, but the name isn't toxic. Again, Bear Stearns was insolvent due to being overextended, and Enron was propped up by massive accounting fraud (like WorldCom). Equifax, on the other hand, was the victim of a cyberattack.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > its name became toxic What tends to matter is whether your name is toxic to your customers, not whether your name is toxic to your unwilling inventory.
g051051 8y ago
Bear Stearns failed because it was overextended on subprime mortgages and lost the ability to conduct business when the cash dried up. Enron was convicted of massive, deliberate accounting fraud. The company wasn't viable without the fraud. Not even remotely similar to the Equifax breach.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Is Equifax viable if they actually secure their data? (Security costs, and it slows down operations, with leaves some profits on the table.)
- arduanika 8y ago
  Dissimilar from Enron only in that Equifax was never convicted for its fairly deliberate negligence of the public interest, or for its massively distributed tort, because the civil case is infeasible, and because no law or regulation is adequate to cover what ought to be criminal case -- this I think is yalogin's point. The security patch here is not a technical solution. It's to wipe out the stockholders of any company this negligent, and repossess the spare homes of the entire C-suite. That should cover most attack vectors pretty reliably.
  - g051051 8y ago
    > its fairly deliberate negligence of the public interest, or for its massively distributed tort If anything, the report says the opposite of that. > It's to wipe out the stockholders of any company this negligent, and repossess the spare homes of the entire C-suite. This is why we don't get any real reform...citizens have these insane ideas on how to "fix" the problem. How can the government take you seriously?
    - arduanika 8y ago
      > the report says the opposite My comment was not aimed at agreeing with the majority report. Would you dispute my characterization of those expired certs as "negligence"? Or perhaps you don't consider the budget meetings that declared how low cybersecurity fell on the list of priorities as "fairly deliberate"? > insane ideas Hmm, maybe you're right. Monetary penalties for undesirable behavior is insane. Let's repeal all tort laws and cancel criminal fines, and make no attempt to levy proportional damages for anything. Let the C-suite keep their options! > How can the government take you seriously? If all else fails, a yellow vest might help. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that here.
tptacek 8y ago
Nobody pays Equifax to protect data. They pay Equifax for access to data, which Equifax has been able to keep doing.

harryh 8y ago

Bears Sterns was acquired by JP Morgan when it was under financial duress. Enron went out of business due to losing an enormous amount of money. Neither of these things had much to do with government regulation.

dopamean 8y ago
You could argue that deregulation played a significant role in the fiascos that brought down both of those companies.
yalogin 8y ago
The analogy was that Equifax lost all of its assets and then some. It failed in the only job it had, protecting users' data, its only asset. It lost credibility and could be argued that its name became toxic. Its very similar to Bear Sterns and Enron, IMO
- harryh 8y ago
  They didn't lose them. They still have them. They just let someone else make a copy. That didn't make the copy that Equifax still has any less valuable. Keeping that data secret isn't the only job it has. In fact that isn't even really their primary job. Their primary job is evaluating the credit worthiness of potential customers for equifax clients. As far as I know, they are still doing that job quite well.
- g051051 8y ago
  It didn't "lose" anything, nor is "protecting users' data" it's only job, nor is that data their only asset. It certainly lost credibility, but the name isn't toxic. Again, Bear Stearns was insolvent due to being overextended, and Enron was propped up by massive accounting fraud (like WorldCom). Equifax, on the other hand, was the victim of a cyberattack.
- arduanika 8y ago
  > its name became toxic What tends to matter is whether your name is toxic to your customers, not whether your name is toxic to your unwilling inventory.

g051051 8y ago

Bear Stearns failed because it was overextended on subprime mortgages and lost the ability to conduct business when the cash dried up. Enron was convicted of massive, deliberate accounting fraud. The company wasn't viable without the fraud. Not even remotely similar to the Equifax breach.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Is Equifax viable if they actually secure their data? (Security costs, and it slows down operations, with leaves some profits on the table.)
arduanika 8y ago
Dissimilar from Enron only in that Equifax was never convicted for its fairly deliberate negligence of the public interest, or for its massively distributed tort, because the civil case is infeasible, and because no law or regulation is adequate to cover what ought to be criminal case -- this I think is yalogin's point. The security patch here is not a technical solution. It's to wipe out the stockholders of any company this negligent, and repossess the spare homes of the entire C-suite. That should cover most attack vectors pretty reliably.
- g051051 8y ago
  > its fairly deliberate negligence of the public interest, or for its massively distributed tort If anything, the report says the opposite of that. > It's to wipe out the stockholders of any company this negligent, and repossess the spare homes of the entire C-suite. This is why we don't get any real reform...citizens have these insane ideas on how to "fix" the problem. How can the government take you seriously?
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > the report says the opposite My comment was not aimed at agreeing with the majority report. Would you dispute my characterization of those expired certs as "negligence"? Or perhaps you don't consider the budget meetings that declared how low cybersecurity fell on the list of priorities as "fairly deliberate"? > insane ideas Hmm, maybe you're right. Monetary penalties for undesirable behavior is insane. Let's repeal all tort laws and cancel criminal fines, and make no attempt to levy proportional damages for anything. Let the C-suite keep their options! > How can the government take you seriously? If all else fails, a yellow vest might help. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that here.

tptacek 8y ago

Nobody pays Equifax to protect data. They pay Equifax for access to data, which Equifax has been able to keep doing.