3 ms·

IANAL. Typically Docker would only be held liable if misconduct can be proven. Incompetence is typically not enough (which is why e.g. Equifax is not liable fo

IANAL. Typically Docker would only be held liable if misconduct can be proven. Incompetence is typically not enough (which is why e.g. Equifax is not liable for the damages following their hack). I do think these laws need to tighten up for security-related incidents, but right now, it is what it is.

icebraining 8y ago
Equifax has been found liable in court(s): [warning: autoplaying sound] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-successfully-suing-equifax-almost-10000-app-193607932.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-successfully-suing-equ...
- dahfizz 8y ago
  From your link: > ...the judge noted that Equifax had a duty to safeguard information, failed to heed warnings from the Department of Homeland Security, and “willfully” violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state regulations. IMO, ignoring government warnings and violating regulations is much different than failing to stand up to an attack. I would be very resistant to making "being hacked" a crime - in almost all cases, the hackee is the victim of an attack. If you feel the need for legal action, we should increase our "anti-hacker" laws and enforcement. We don't fine banks for being robbed. It's the robbers fault something bad happened, not the bank's. EDIT: formatting
  - bauerm97 8y ago
    > We don't fine banks for being robbed. It's the robbers fault something bad happened, not the bank's. No, we don't fine banks for being robbed. However, if the bank had clearly insufficient security on their vault, was notified of this being a problem, and made zero efforts to fix the problem then yes they should be held liable.
    - dahfizz 8y ago
      Isn't that exactly what I stated in my comment?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > We don't fine banks for being robbed The comparison seems specious - the customers of the bank don't lose their money when a bank is robbed. The security is for its own benefit. Still, your point stands.

icebraining 8y ago

Equifax has been found liable in court(s): [warning: autoplaying sound] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-successfully-suing-equifax-almost-10000-app-193607932.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-successfully-suing-equ...

dahfizz 8y ago
From your link: > ...the judge noted that Equifax had a duty to safeguard information, failed to heed warnings from the Department of Homeland Security, and “willfully” violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state regulations. IMO, ignoring government warnings and violating regulations is much different than failing to stand up to an attack. I would be very resistant to making "being hacked" a crime - in almost all cases, the hackee is the victim of an attack. If you feel the need for legal action, we should increase our "anti-hacker" laws and enforcement. We don't fine banks for being robbed. It's the robbers fault something bad happened, not the bank's. EDIT: formatting
- bauerm97 8y ago
  > We don't fine banks for being robbed. It's the robbers fault something bad happened, not the bank's. No, we don't fine banks for being robbed. However, if the bank had clearly insufficient security on their vault, was notified of this being a problem, and made zero efforts to fix the problem then yes they should be held liable.
  - dahfizz 8y ago
    Isn't that exactly what I stated in my comment?
- icebraining 8y ago
  > We don't fine banks for being robbed The comparison seems specious - the customers of the bank don't lose their money when a bank is robbed. The security is for its own benefit. Still, your point stands.