3 ms·
I can't think of any other company that has a history of downplaying breeches and then revising the numbers upwards. If you don't know how many people are impac
by eridius 8y ago
I can't think of any other company that has a history of downplaying breeches and then revising the numbers upwards. If you don't know how many people are impacted, you aren't supposed to just make up a number. At a bare minimum you'd say something like "We know 10k users are definitely impacted, and we estimate this could be as high as 5M" or whatever the appropriate ballpark is.
- kibibu 8y agoLinkedIn went from 6 million to 107 million...
- eridius 8y agoOuch. Is this a one-time thing, or do they have a history of that? What I was trying to say was that I can understand companies making this mistake once. Maybe even twice. But once a company has an established pattern of doing this, they lose the benefit of the doubt and we have to assume they're doing it deliberately. Even more-so if they do scummy things like try to bury their "it's 1000x worse" update with other high-profile news. Facebook has a long history of this kind of thing now, every single new privacy violation of theirs must be met with the expectation that it's actually 1000x worse than they say. I'm not aware of any other companies with a history of doing this multiple times.