3 ms·

Though not literally the same as loss of life, there has to come a point where software "glitches" that lead to this kind of release are treated in a way simila

Though not literally the same as loss of life, there has to come a point where software "glitches" that lead to this kind of release are treated in a way similar to a software "glitch" that leads to accidents with computer controlled machines. Boeing's majorly paying for this right now, but companies like this just get to say "Oops" and move on. Again, it's not the same as people dying in a plane crash, but it's not in the, "The car I ordered wasn't the same shade of blue I thought I was getting" category either. As a software engineers (if you are one), we at some point have obligations to our end users that top the obligations to the people who pay for our work. And if I worked for Boeing, it's not my personal obligation to safety that keeps that plane safe, it's Boeing's obligation, and their interest in a culture that manifests a mindset in developers of "There's a lot riding on your decisions."

rectang 7y ago
The difference between those two "glitches", receiving an incorrect product and Credit Karma's exposure is: that toxic asset, your data. We are eventually going to come around to the fact that business models which require keeping sensitive user data are highly risky — just like businesses that handle toxic chemicals.
- pugworthy 7y ago
  Thanks. Better analogy than my Boeing one.
- sixdimensional 7y ago
  I think we are already there. Assigning a monetary value to data is a critical step for any responsible organization or person, then it can be managed like an asset or a liability - of which it is both.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Not unless there's legislation giving people some ownership of their data and companies some responsibility in its stewardship. Until then it'll be an externality, which means that hoarding data is essentially free money. Just like businesses who use and discard into the environment toxic chemicals that there are no regulations covering.

rectang 7y ago

The difference between those two "glitches", receiving an incorrect product and Credit Karma's exposure is: that toxic asset, your data. We are eventually going to come around to the fact that business models which require keeping sensitive user data are highly risky — just like businesses that handle toxic chemicals.

pugworthy 7y ago
Thanks. Better analogy than my Boeing one.
sixdimensional 7y ago
I think we are already there. Assigning a monetary value to data is a critical step for any responsible organization or person, then it can be managed like an asset or a liability - of which it is both.
pessimizer 7y ago
Not unless there's legislation giving people some ownership of their data and companies some responsibility in its stewardship. Until then it'll be an externality, which means that hoarding data is essentially free money. Just like businesses who use and discard into the environment toxic chemicals that there are no regulations covering.