6 ms·

How could allowing random countries to spy on your customers not be considered a hindrance? Don't you think this would cost you future customers?

shmatt 5y ago
I don't think anyone assumes the booking for their next family vacation or business trip can't be tracked. They use their credit card and their telephone number at least As for losing the customer base of drug kingpins and wanted terrorists, they're probably OK with losing them
- hammock 5y ago
  That might be a reasonable expectation, that the government of the country whose company you use to book a hotel would know what you're doing. But that's not this. Booking.com is a Dutch company. The spy was American. And not even authorized by the US nor the Netherlands either.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Booking.com is kind of a Dutch company, at least the .com division, but it's actually owned by a American parent, "Booking Holdings", based in Norwalk, Connecticut.
    - astrange 5y ago
      They sold themselves to Priceline because Europe doesn't seem capable of funding startups.
      - capableweb 5y ago
        True, too bad Klarna, Spotify, Snyk, Glovo, N26, eToro and more simply doesn't exist because they couldn't find funding :(
- oxfordmale 5y ago
  You are assuming that the only black hat hackers are "trustworthy" Americans. There are a list of countries where selling on any of the collected data on the black market would either be condoned or actively pursued to maximise disruption. Would you be happy for a database of holidays to be sold to a crime ring to select their next best target for a burglary ? Or more realistically, would you be happy for such state actors to identify PEPs (politically exposed person) who are potentially cheating on their partners and use this as leverage to drive through certain political decisions? There is no such thing as a vulnerability that can only be abused by the good "guys"
  - pbaka 5y ago
    > abused by the good "guys" quotation marks are on the wrong word.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  > As for losing the customer base of drug kingpins and wanted terrorists, they're probably OK with losing them This is just the "nothing to hide" argument in reverse.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Not really? I mean, this is probably a subset of "I don't have anything to hide, so why do I care about privacy?" But I just went to California on vacation, and, sure, I'll tell the CIA all about it if they want to know. And I'm one of the people who understands why privacy is important. (Or maybe, based on my previous paragraph, you'll conclude that I'm not, I just think I am.) I don't know. It just... doesn't feel that intrusive, for some reason. Maybe because for international travel, I already have to use my passport, so they already know. (Yes, maybe it's a different "they"...) Maybe because there's already a "do not fly" list, so somebody's hitting that database every time I try to book a flight, and it wouldn't be that hard for them to log the queries against it. I don't know. But as I said, at least to me, this one doesn't feel that intrusive... and I can't really rationally explain why. Maybe it's arrogance to assume that most people are no more paranoid than I am. But I think that means that most people probably aren't going to avoid booking.com because of this.
- oxfordmale 5y ago
  There are many other state actors who can do this, and they wouldn't necessarily have good intentions. Wouldn't it be great if you could use it to identify which PEP (politically exposed person) is using booking.com to cheat on their partner, and use this as leverage to drive through certain political decisions ? I agree most people aren't going to avoid booking.com, but that doesn't justify leaving your system vulnerable to advanced hackers

shmatt 5y ago

I don't think anyone assumes the booking for their next family vacation or business trip can't be tracked. They use their credit card and their telephone number at least As for losing the customer base of drug kingpins and wanted terrorists, they're probably OK with losing them

hammock 5y ago
That might be a reasonable expectation, that the government of the country whose company you use to book a hotel would know what you're doing. But that's not this. Booking.com is a Dutch company. The spy was American. And not even authorized by the US nor the Netherlands either.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Booking.com is kind of a Dutch company, at least the .com division, but it's actually owned by a American parent, "Booking Holdings", based in Norwalk, Connecticut.
  - astrange 5y ago
    They sold themselves to Priceline because Europe doesn't seem capable of funding startups.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      True, too bad Klarna, Spotify, Snyk, Glovo, N26, eToro and more simply doesn't exist because they couldn't find funding :(
oxfordmale 5y ago
You are assuming that the only black hat hackers are "trustworthy" Americans. There are a list of countries where selling on any of the collected data on the black market would either be condoned or actively pursued to maximise disruption. Would you be happy for a database of holidays to be sold to a crime ring to select their next best target for a burglary ? Or more realistically, would you be happy for such state actors to identify PEPs (politically exposed person) who are potentially cheating on their partners and use this as leverage to drive through certain political decisions? There is no such thing as a vulnerability that can only be abused by the good "guys"
- pbaka 5y ago
  > abused by the good "guys" quotation marks are on the wrong word.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> As for losing the customer base of drug kingpins and wanted terrorists, they're probably OK with losing them This is just the "nothing to hide" argument in reverse.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Not really? I mean, this is probably a subset of "I don't have anything to hide, so why do I care about privacy?" But I just went to California on vacation, and, sure, I'll tell the CIA all about it if they want to know. And I'm one of the people who understands why privacy is important. (Or maybe, based on my previous paragraph, you'll conclude that I'm not, I just think I am.) I don't know. It just... doesn't feel that intrusive, for some reason. Maybe because for international travel, I already have to use my passport, so they already know. (Yes, maybe it's a different "they"...) Maybe because there's already a "do not fly" list, so somebody's hitting that database every time I try to book a flight, and it wouldn't be that hard for them to log the queries against it. I don't know. But as I said, at least to me, this one doesn't feel that intrusive... and I can't really rationally explain why. Maybe it's arrogance to assume that most people are no more paranoid than I am. But I think that means that most people probably aren't going to avoid booking.com because of this.

oxfordmale 5y ago
There are many other state actors who can do this, and they wouldn't necessarily have good intentions. Wouldn't it be great if you could use it to identify which PEP (politically exposed person) is using booking.com to cheat on their partner, and use this as leverage to drive through certain political decisions ? I agree most people aren't going to avoid booking.com, but that doesn't justify leaving your system vulnerable to advanced hackers