4 ms·
>ensure its security, just like they would do with any other asset. This motivation is asinine. Record leaks don't do anything to harm the original records and
by crumpets 7y ago
>ensure its security, just like they would do with any other asset.
This motivation is asinine. Record leaks don't do anything to harm the original records and it's not like Marriott's secret sauce is a list of customer records. Companies don't protect assets from things that don't cause the assets harm.
Personal data does not have value to the company in that regard. It's a liability more than an asset.
- formercoder 7y agoThe definition of an asset is something that provides probable future economic value to the firm. Personal data seems to fall under this category to me.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoHopefully this fine will help wake the industry up to the fact that this asset comes with considerable regulatory costs, and that those costs may well be more than the value of the asset. Hopefully that will stop them hoarding personal data. GDRP is working as intended :)
- amputect 7y agoIf personal data doesn't have value to the company and it's not an asset, then the company shouldn't be collecting and storing it. Making storing personal data a liability is good if the goal is to prevent companies from storing personal data unless there's a strong business need (and corresponding level of care) involved.