3 ms·
If your bank lost your money due to getting hacked would you just shrug and accept that they do money, not IT security and therefore it's outside scope for a ne
by throwaway426079 3y ago
If your bank lost your money due to getting hacked would you just shrug and accept that they do money, not IT security and therefore it's outside scope for a negligence claim?
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoIf the negligence directly led to provable harm to me (such as getting evicted because I couldn't make rent), then I would want a negligence suit. If it didn't cause provable harm to me, merely some annoyance, and I got all of my money back from FDIC insurance, then I believe any negligence claim should be greatly limited, or even outside of scope, yes. If probable harm happens to people because of these record leaks I believe the law firm should be part of the joint liability to make that harm as financially whole as possible. But that's what a civil suit is for, not a DA enforcement.
- throwaway426079 3y agoNegligence doesn't work the way you describe with potential to be out of scope. It is a finding of fact: there was negligence or there was not. The law has a separate mechanism for situations that you might call 'out of scope' which is to award zero damages.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI understand that. You were the one who chose "scope" as the word to use to describe this and I was just using your word in order to facilitate conversation between us.