4 ms·

> material to a reasonable investor. As long as the investor is hurt, right? The users are just collateral.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I don't make the rules, and it is unfortunate there is still a wide gap between current state and desired end state wrt citizen harm; to understand the rules is to leverage them to arrive at a desired outcome. Code for some hackers, legal and regulatory frameworks for others. Simply different syntax, runtimes, and exception handling.
ArnoVW 2y ago
Any negative news that can influence the share price is material information. A hack, involving payment means, of 500M users is definitely material information. Also. As the excellent Matt Levine never ceases to repeat : everything is securities fraud. If you didn't state in your regular filings "our security is poor, we may get hacked", then you lied by omission.
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Opposite. SEC 8K being enforced has been nothing but good overall. These companies were being hacked and it was hidden from you. Now, it’s open, embarrassing, and costly. So they’re taking security more seriously. If you are concerned about share price, buy the dip on hack.
mananaysiempre 2y ago
The SEC’s job is the integrity of the securities market. The user would be the concern of a consumer rights authority (the FTC) or a privacy protection one (I don’t think the US has one of those on the federal level?). That the SEC is the way we learn about these things is nothing more than a relatively recent hack, and how widespread the damage from that hackery is going to be is not yet clear. (E.g. “money laundering” seemed like a reasonable hack for the first couple of decades, but these days banks have turned into an surveillance and enforcement apparatus with a presumption of guilt and no right of appeal.)
skrebbel 2y ago
“The SEC doesn’t care about users” is a a weird complaint. A bit like “The IRS doesn’t care about climate change”.
jameshart 2y ago
The reason the investors care is presumably because of the fear that there will be significant, material financial consequences for the business arising from harms that affect the users. If the expectation was that users were screwed and would not be entitled to any compensation, then the news of this breach would be no more material to the company’s investors than learning the at the air conditioning was set to the wrong temperature in one of the company’s offices for a few hours.

I don't make the rules, and it is unfortunate there is still a wide gap between current state and desired end state wrt citizen harm; to understand the rules is to leverage them to arrive at a desired outcome. Code for some hackers, legal and regulatory frameworks for others. Simply different syntax, runtimes, and exception handling.

ArnoVW 2y ago

Any negative news that can influence the share price is material information. A hack, involving payment means, of 500M users is definitely material information. Also. As the excellent Matt Levine never ceases to repeat : everything is securities fraud. If you didn't state in your regular filings "our security is poor, we may get hacked", then you lied by omission.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

Opposite. SEC 8K being enforced has been nothing but good overall. These companies were being hacked and it was hidden from you. Now, it’s open, embarrassing, and costly. So they’re taking security more seriously. If you are concerned about share price, buy the dip on hack.

mananaysiempre 2y ago

The SEC’s job is the integrity of the securities market. The user would be the concern of a consumer rights authority (the FTC) or a privacy protection one (I don’t think the US has one of those on the federal level?). That the SEC is the way we learn about these things is nothing more than a relatively recent hack, and how widespread the damage from that hackery is going to be is not yet clear. (E.g. “money laundering” seemed like a reasonable hack for the first couple of decades, but these days banks have turned into an surveillance and enforcement apparatus with a presumption of guilt and no right of appeal.)

skrebbel 2y ago

“The SEC doesn’t care about users” is a a weird complaint. A bit like “The IRS doesn’t care about climate change”.

jameshart 2y ago

The reason the investors care is presumably because of the fear that there will be significant, material financial consequences for the business arising from harms that affect the users. If the expectation was that users were screwed and would not be entitled to any compensation, then the news of this breach would be no more material to the company’s investors than learning the at the air conditioning was set to the wrong temperature in one of the company’s offices for a few hours.