3 ms·

Eh, maybe it's irresponsible but I don't think that it needs to be a felony or that those people shouldn't be in business. People just shouldn't expect every sh

Eh, maybe it's irresponsible but I don't think that it needs to be a felony or that those people shouldn't be in business. People just shouldn't expect every shady website to have perfect data practices.

ben_w 7y ago
You shouldn’t need to ask if your employer is shady — and even then because it isn’t shady, not because someone tells you afterwards that it should’ve been obvious to you that it was bad before you started.
- reroute1 7y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't mean that because some data got leaked that it should be a felony.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Not being a legal scholar, I won’t make a distinction between felony and misdemeanor. What I will say is that just as computers are a force-multipler for getting important stuff done, they are also a force-multiplier for causing harm. As the old saying goes: “to er is human, to really foul up requires a computer”. This leak did not endanger just one or two people, which would be bad enough, but 4000. Even if the remedy is limited to a fine sufficient for each affected person to change their names and address, it is still a more serious harm than almost anything normal intuition will help with because of how many were involved. I wish that being in the sex industry was socially neutral for men and women and that nobody would be assaulted or insulted for it. I don’t know why that isn’t the case already, but I do recognise that it isn’t — and given that it isn’t, this leak is still extremely likely to result in someone getting hurt.
    - reroute1 7y ago
      Also not being a legal scholar, the distinction being that a felony is a much more serious crime and lands people in jail for long periods of time. Which is why I think this could be an over reaction when a data leak may possibly be a mistake or ignorance. I understand that the nature of the data may be sensitive, but I don't think it makes sense to ham handedly punish people for something they aren't directly responsible for. Like someone being hypothetically hurt by someone else because of a data leak they may not even have known about.
oarsinsync 7y ago
I strongly disagree. I’d expect the shadiest of shady websites to have the best security, but as demonstrated, the people that scooped up tonnes of my financial history without my permission, then charge me for access, and sell that data to other financial institutions that use that data to determine my access to credit, not only have terrible security, but aren’t really punished for it either.

ben_w 7y ago

You shouldn’t need to ask if your employer is shady — and even then because it isn’t shady, not because someone tells you afterwards that it should’ve been obvious to you that it was bad before you started.

reroute1 7y ago
Sure, but that doesn't mean that because some data got leaked that it should be a felony.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Not being a legal scholar, I won’t make a distinction between felony and misdemeanor. What I will say is that just as computers are a force-multipler for getting important stuff done, they are also a force-multiplier for causing harm. As the old saying goes: “to er is human, to really foul up requires a computer”. This leak did not endanger just one or two people, which would be bad enough, but 4000. Even if the remedy is limited to a fine sufficient for each affected person to change their names and address, it is still a more serious harm than almost anything normal intuition will help with because of how many were involved. I wish that being in the sex industry was socially neutral for men and women and that nobody would be assaulted or insulted for it. I don’t know why that isn’t the case already, but I do recognise that it isn’t — and given that it isn’t, this leak is still extremely likely to result in someone getting hurt.
  - reroute1 7y ago
    Also not being a legal scholar, the distinction being that a felony is a much more serious crime and lands people in jail for long periods of time. Which is why I think this could be an over reaction when a data leak may possibly be a mistake or ignorance. I understand that the nature of the data may be sensitive, but I don't think it makes sense to ham handedly punish people for something they aren't directly responsible for. Like someone being hypothetically hurt by someone else because of a data leak they may not even have known about.

oarsinsync 7y ago

I strongly disagree. I’d expect the shadiest of shady websites to have the best security, but as demonstrated, the people that scooped up tonnes of my financial history without my permission, then charge me for access, and sell that data to other financial institutions that use that data to determine my access to credit, not only have terrible security, but aren’t really punished for it either.