5 ms·

You’d think for all the additional booking fees that they’re known for charging that they’d invest a little more into security of their infrastructure both inte

You’d think for all the additional booking fees that they’re known for charging that they’d invest a little more into security of their infrastructure both internally and externally…

sa-code 2y ago
Nope those fees might as well be called "yachts for executives fee"
portaouflop 2y ago
Why should they invest? Most likely nothing bad will happen to their bottom line or execs so no reason to invest in security. We decided that profits are more important than accountability.
nine_zeros 2y ago
Those yachts won't get bought themselves.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mholt 2y ago
They recently got sued for being a monopoly. They have no incentive to do better. And unfortunately this probably won’t change anything. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-...
CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
Who would think that? Extra earned resources never goes into improving security, why would it be different with Ticketmaster? Live Nation Entertainment / Live Nation, owner of Ticketmaster, is a public for-profit company, 100% of their focus will be on "more money now", and security doesn't contribute to that so of course they wouldn't focus on that.
safety1st 2y ago
On the contrary, economists have known for some time [1] that this (investing in improvements to their product) is exactly what monopolies DON'T do well. And the DoJ is suing Ticketmaster for being an abusive monopoly as we speak, so..... [1] Actually, we've known this as far back as Adam Smith! He talked a fair bit of shit about monopolies in The Wealth of Nations. His "invisible hand," after all, was competition, which monopolies by definition don't have. Remember this every time someone talks shit about capitalism and points to corrupt and abusive American monopolies as evidence of why it's a failed system. America's government only really started leaning into its modern love for monopolies from the Reagan administration onward - in defiance of centuries of evidence that it was a bad idea.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
Like anything ever happened to any company that had a data breach. It's been shown time and again that it's a waste of money to care about this. In contrast, what is worth it is to do the minimum necessary to check the boxes on whatever certification the business is trying to get.
nerdawson 2y ago
Their data was exposed by breaching a third party service. I'm not sure how investing more in security could have helped prevent this. You could argue that they shouldn't be housing this data with Snowflake but then you could say the same about a service like Amazon S3. At what point is a company able to rely on a third-party vs being expected to run it in-house?
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  You're right, but nobody here cares about the details of data subprocessors and how a lot of nodes in the chain get impacted. It doesn't play well on the internet where short & pithy moral outrage is the level of discourse. It makes me sad that the initial reaction is gleeful & mean-spirited towards the targets, when if you've ever been involved in something like this you'd hope it would be empathy for what a lot of Snowflake and TM employees are working on this weekend, and anger towards the hackers. It's like people forget that because it's data and the targets are big companies these criminals aren't stealing from real people and making the world a worse place.

You’d think for all the additional booking fees that they’re known for charging that they’d invest a little more into security of their infrastructure both internally and externally…

sa-code 2y ago

Nope those fees might as well be called "yachts for executives fee"

portaouflop 2y ago

Why should they invest? Most likely nothing bad will happen to their bottom line or execs so no reason to invest in security. We decided that profits are more important than accountability.

nine_zeros 2y ago

Those yachts won't get bought themselves.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mholt 2y ago

They recently got sued for being a monopoly. They have no incentive to do better. And unfortunately this probably won’t change anything. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-...

CaptainOfCoit 2y ago

Who would think that? Extra earned resources never goes into improving security, why would it be different with Ticketmaster? Live Nation Entertainment / Live Nation, owner of Ticketmaster, is a public for-profit company, 100% of their focus will be on "more money now", and security doesn't contribute to that so of course they wouldn't focus on that.

safety1st 2y ago

On the contrary, economists have known for some time [1] that this (investing in improvements to their product) is exactly what monopolies DON'T do well. And the DoJ is suing Ticketmaster for being an abusive monopoly as we speak, so..... [1] Actually, we've known this as far back as Adam Smith! He talked a fair bit of shit about monopolies in The Wealth of Nations. His "invisible hand," after all, was competition, which monopolies by definition don't have. Remember this every time someone talks shit about capitalism and points to corrupt and abusive American monopolies as evidence of why it's a failed system. America's government only really started leaning into its modern love for monopolies from the Reagan administration onward - in defiance of centuries of evidence that it was a bad idea.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Like anything ever happened to any company that had a data breach. It's been shown time and again that it's a waste of money to care about this. In contrast, what is worth it is to do the minimum necessary to check the boxes on whatever certification the business is trying to get.

nerdawson 2y ago

Their data was exposed by breaching a third party service. I'm not sure how investing more in security could have helped prevent this. You could argue that they shouldn't be housing this data with Snowflake but then you could say the same about a service like Amazon S3. At what point is a company able to rely on a third-party vs being expected to run it in-house?

skeeter2020 2y ago
You're right, but nobody here cares about the details of data subprocessors and how a lot of nodes in the chain get impacted. It doesn't play well on the internet where short & pithy moral outrage is the level of discourse. It makes me sad that the initial reaction is gleeful & mean-spirited towards the targets, when if you've ever been involved in something like this you'd hope it would be empathy for what a lot of Snowflake and TM employees are working on this weekend, and anger towards the hackers. It's like people forget that because it's data and the targets are big companies these criminals aren't stealing from real people and making the world a worse place.