3 ms·

Why would any institution take security of the people data seriously if it take a lot of resources if all they had to suffer is to offer 12 months of free credi

Why would any institution take security of the people data seriously if it take a lot of resources if all they had to suffer is to offer 12 months of free credit monitoring? And they even have the audacity to call that Industry standard.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why would any institution take security of the people data seriously if it take a lot of resources if all they had to suffer is to offer 12 months of free credit monitoring? Serious question from someone who takes their privacy seriously. What actual harms have we documented from these breaches?
- anm89 3y ago
  Serious fucking idiocy
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Serious fucking idiocy Mature response. Now actually think about it. If you solve this, you've solved the key barrier to incentivizing change. If you can't answer it, then security seems more like an aesthetic preference than a social problem.
- j-bos 3y ago
  I'm not a statistician, but I like barinstorming: - Spearphishing and the consequences of such - Persistent robocalls - Wide net identity theft - Targeted scam calls to family members
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I like barinstorming: - Spearphishing and the consequences of such - Persistent robocalls - Wide net identity theft - Targeted scam calls to family members Actual, not hypothetical. Again, I believe this happens. But why is it so difficult to document?
    - elashri 3y ago
      It is hard to document and then sue anyone for data breach. Now I have all information needed for someone to open credit cards in my name (ot assume identity in general) from the following sources. - My old university - T mobile - My health provider Now if you try to sue any one them regardless of their arbitration mandatory you would have to prove that the harm is because of this particular institution and not the others. And the notion of identity theft is putting the blame on the people where the actual victims are the banks/dealers and not you. But it is easy to put the responsibility on you.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if you try to sue any one them regardless of their arbitration mandatory you would have to prove that the harm is because of this particular institution and not the others No, you'd just have to show the first part. That they caused harm. > the notion of identity theft is putting the blame on the people where thr actual victims are the banks/dealers This is a real problem. But I haven't seen anyone successfully tie a case of identity theft, even in part, to a particular breach.
        elashri 3y ago
        Your second part is answering your first part. You did not see anyone successfully tied it to a particular breach because you have to show that it is because of this breach not other breach. These companies have deep buckets and will employee laywers who have experience into squashing all the suits of this kind. Edit: I have much less faith that your question in the beginning was serious with good intentions now.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > did not see anyone successfully tied it to a particular breach because you have to show that it is because of this breach not other breach. Again, this is not true. If two people steal your data, and you can tie the use of any of that stolen data to harm, they are each liable. The problem is in identifying the harms. Not calculating the attributed damage. > companies have deep buckets and will employee laywers who have experience into squashing all the suits of this kind A multibillion-dollar payoff for lawyers and a wealthy plaintiff to get a class certified, and the answer is a conspiracy of corporate counsels?
- az09mugen 3y ago
  Edit : bad answer
sinclairX86 3y ago
Welcome to Capitalism.
- bdzr 3y ago
  Right?! That's exactly what I tell people when anything bad happens. It's because of capitalism guys, duh!

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Why would any institution take security of the people data seriously if it take a lot of resources if all they had to suffer is to offer 12 months of free credit monitoring? Serious question from someone who takes their privacy seriously. What actual harms have we documented from these breaches?

anm89 3y ago
Serious fucking idiocy
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Serious fucking idiocy Mature response. Now actually think about it. If you solve this, you've solved the key barrier to incentivizing change. If you can't answer it, then security seems more like an aesthetic preference than a social problem.
j-bos 3y ago
I'm not a statistician, but I like barinstorming: - Spearphishing and the consequences of such - Persistent robocalls - Wide net identity theft - Targeted scam calls to family members
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I like barinstorming: - Spearphishing and the consequences of such - Persistent robocalls - Wide net identity theft - Targeted scam calls to family members Actual, not hypothetical. Again, I believe this happens. But why is it so difficult to document?
  - elashri 3y ago
    It is hard to document and then sue anyone for data breach. Now I have all information needed for someone to open credit cards in my name (ot assume identity in general) from the following sources. - My old university - T mobile - My health provider Now if you try to sue any one them regardless of their arbitration mandatory you would have to prove that the harm is because of this particular institution and not the others. And the notion of identity theft is putting the blame on the people where the actual victims are the banks/dealers and not you. But it is easy to put the responsibility on you.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if you try to sue any one them regardless of their arbitration mandatory you would have to prove that the harm is because of this particular institution and not the others No, you'd just have to show the first part. That they caused harm. > the notion of identity theft is putting the blame on the people where thr actual victims are the banks/dealers This is a real problem. But I haven't seen anyone successfully tie a case of identity theft, even in part, to a particular breach.
      - elashri 3y ago
        Your second part is answering your first part. You did not see anyone successfully tied it to a particular breach because you have to show that it is because of this breach not other breach. These companies have deep buckets and will employee laywers who have experience into squashing all the suits of this kind. Edit: I have much less faith that your question in the beginning was serious with good intentions now.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > did not see anyone successfully tied it to a particular breach because you have to show that it is because of this breach not other breach. Again, this is not true. If two people steal your data, and you can tie the use of any of that stolen data to harm, they are each liable. The problem is in identifying the harms. Not calculating the attributed damage. > companies have deep buckets and will employee laywers who have experience into squashing all the suits of this kind A multibillion-dollar payoff for lawyers and a wealthy plaintiff to get a class certified, and the answer is a conspiracy of corporate counsels?
az09mugen 3y ago
Edit : bad answer

sinclairX86 3y ago

Welcome to Capitalism.

bdzr 3y ago
Right?! That's exactly what I tell people when anything bad happens. It's because of capitalism guys, duh!