3 ms·
I don't think I agree that the use of the word "another" implies that the breaches were equal, but I can see why others might interpret it that way. I won't di
by arrakeenrevived 3y ago
I don't think I agree that the use of the word "another" implies that the breaches were equal, but I can see why others might interpret it that way.
I won't disagree with opinion on the quality of Ars' reporting or this particular article, but I do disagree with the original comment's statement that "this had nothing to do with Okta".
- d3w4s9 3y agoWithout knowing the context, I doubt anyone reading the title is thinking "maybe they mean another breach where Okta is impacted but Okta is not the culprit, despite recent events". No, the title is simply misleading. They could have swapped Okta for another company's name or something like "Personal information stolen in healthcare company breach", and the news likely wouldn't get much attention, which is as much as what the article is actually worth. Singling out Okta among many of that company's clients is simply meaningless and wrong and does nothing other than attention grabbing.
- 3c6bYDXLMj 3y agoImmediately what I thought when I read it. The person you’re responding to is being obtuse to the point where it feels like trolling or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Certainly a bad-faith argument.