3 ms·

> I'm not asking you whether the House Republicans would call the expired certs negligent, or the security underprioritized. I'm asking you, as the reader of a

> I'm not asking you whether the House Republicans would call the expired certs negligent, or the security underprioritized. I'm asking you, as the reader of a technical forum. No, that's not negligent. Nor was security "underprioritized". If you read the reporting on the issue (whether the government report or just reputable news), it show solid processes and procedures, but there were implementation flaws. There is no amount of security that will ever be perfect. > Do you believe everything the government tells you? Or here, what one party tells you? At the very least, read the minority report linked elsewhere in this thread, and interpolate. Considering that the report matches all the other reputable reporting on the issue? Yes, I believe it. Equifax is claiming "factual errors", but I'd have to see their response before commenting on that. > Nowhere near huge enough That's your opinion, but the market has decided otherwise. > Equifax could care less what its unwilling inventory thinks of it. Correct. I was talking about their customers...the businesses that supply and use their data and services. > Name one victim whose damages are large enough to merit hiring a lawyer to comb all the contracts to identify the line where a bank promised that Equifax promised that the victim's data would be safe, and I'll show you a breach of contract. Hint: it's a different line for each victim. Once you do that, prove that the information came from the Equifax breach, and not one of the dozens of other breaches, let alone the 4 other large breaches I cited. > the damages to the public are "massively distributed" and infeasible to pin down, which is why there should be a criminal penalty, like we do for say, ozone-depleting chemicals. Or their negligible and impossible to detect at any meaningful level. > (sigh) you're probably right. It's troubling that you seem to think violence is some sort of solution to any problem, let alone this problem.

arduanika 8y ago
> the market has decided Like do you understand what an externality is? When I say it's not huge enough, it's pretty clear that I don't mean Equifax is overvalued & people should all go out and short it. The lawmakers and regulators have decided that the externality will have no significant consequences. The market hardly decides anything here; it reacts. My reading of the reports is that this company was roughly in line with common practices. My point is that common practices must change.
- g051051 8y ago
  > The lawmakers and regulators have decided that the externality will have no significant consequences. No, they just haven't finished yet. There's already been some new regulation, and I believe more to come, for the credit industry as a whole. > The market hardly decides anything here; it reacts. If Equifax's customers decided that they couldn't safely do business with it, then Equifax would cease to exist. > My reading of the reports is that this company was roughly in line with common practices. My point is that common practices must change. I certainly agree there, wholeheartedly. But you seem to be singling out Equifax, when it's an industry wide problem.

arduanika 8y ago

> the market has decided Like do you understand what an externality is? When I say it's not huge enough, it's pretty clear that I don't mean Equifax is overvalued & people should all go out and short it. The lawmakers and regulators have decided that the externality will have no significant consequences. The market hardly decides anything here; it reacts. My reading of the reports is that this company was roughly in line with common practices. My point is that common practices must change.

g051051 8y ago
> The lawmakers and regulators have decided that the externality will have no significant consequences. No, they just haven't finished yet. There's already been some new regulation, and I believe more to come, for the credit industry as a whole. > The market hardly decides anything here; it reacts. If Equifax's customers decided that they couldn't safely do business with it, then Equifax would cease to exist. > My reading of the reports is that this company was roughly in line with common practices. My point is that common practices must change. I certainly agree there, wholeheartedly. But you seem to be singling out Equifax, when it's an industry wide problem.