3 ms·
You're right, $17B (or more, or dissolving the company) would start to actually spark off some real change in attitudes towards infosec among executives, instea
by situational87 7y ago
You're right, $17B (or more, or dissolving the company) would start to actually spark off some real change in attitudes towards infosec among executives, instead of just continuing the status quo with this non-enforcement action.
The strangest part of this ordeal was when that guy from the FTC was encouraging consumers to take the monitoring on Equifax's request.
They're not even pretending to be regulated anymore, they just come out and tell the government what to say.
The senate report on this hack goes into lots of technical detail, savaging Equifax for their gross incompetence and negligence beat by beat: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL%20Equifax%20Report.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL%20Equifax%2...
Despite all this provable negligence and incompetence all laid out in writing for everyone to see they still suffered zero real consequences. This is going to keep happening over and over and over again until we decide it's unacceptable.
- jjeaff 7y agoI actually don't think taking the monitoring is a bad idea. The $125 will not amount to much and he knew that. The monitoring does include some type of identity theft insurance I believe which could actually end up costing Equifax a lot more. Since the settlement amount was fixed, I don't see any reason the the ftc to encourage not taking it for the wrong reasons.
- undersuit 7y agoThe insurance has to be some kind of joke, they lost the data. The thing they were insuring against has already happened.
- vagab0nd 7y agoToo bad the total amount is fixed. I don't care about the $125. I want them to lose a substantial amount of money so that they and everybody else start taking this more seriously.