4 ms·
> Anyone have any reasonable explanation for this? Wouldn't it be better to fine companies that don't have a security standard for their data? Well, your secon
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> Anyone have any reasonable explanation for this? Wouldn't it be better to fine companies that don't have a security standard for their data?
Well, your second question is basically impossible to do, as "security standards" are a constantly evolving landscape and being compliant with whatever the latest certification will not necessarily prevent you from being hacked. Also, it is much more difficult and expensive and potentially unconstitutional to enforce such a law, whereas enforcing a law that requires companies not to transfer money to certain countries or organizations is comparatively easier. It's also easier tell which side of the bright line any given action is on.
The explanation for the law is obvious and you seem to know it from the previous paragraph so I'm not sure what the question is. Is it controversial? For sure. Is it without any logic? By your own admission, there is an argument to be made.
- Avtomatk 6y agoIn my comment above I talked about applying security standards or backups, I see that forcing companies to have backups is more viable... To better understand my point of view, read my example above and the comment of "luckylion ". Companies are simply not going to report because their intellectual property becomes more valuable than the ransom payment. This law does not mitigate anything, instead a backup regulation would mitigate the problem (because it would not be necessary to pay the ransom, if you need such explicit help to understand things).