4 ms·

No. That would just put a market price on your dignity. Fifty bucks is cheap that they'd happily pay you that. Please forgive me... I don't mean this as a pers

No. That would just put a market price on your dignity. Fifty bucks is cheap that they'd happily pay you that. Please forgive me... I don't mean this as a personal insult; but a better system would be where you get fined $50 for being stupid enough to give them the data in the first place.

acdha 2y ago
> where you get fined $50 for being stupid enough to give them the data in the first place. So … you don’t use banks, utilities, phone companies, healthcare, etc. and don’t apply for or accept non-anonymous jobs? This isn’t optional in many cases, which is why it really needs to be covered by legislation which shifts the cost to the company collecting that data.
giantg2 2y ago
It depends. Some industries would be able to happily pay that. Others have tight enough margins that they might feel real impact. Even 1 million users x $50 is a huge sum for most companies.
bradleyjg 2y ago
I’m no more insulted than if you told me I’m a fool because I don’t live in a cave in the Himalayas chanting mantras. Our visions of a life well lived are too different for you to be able to insult me.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > Our visions of a life well lived are too different Well that didn't come over as humorless, tone-deaf, pompous or over-sensitive at all, thank goodness. I'll just get back to grunting and waving a jaw-bone in my cave, eating grubs and worms and smearing myself with my own faeces, then, shall I?
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    Matthew 7:3-5
batch12 2y ago
A better system would be one where the company paid a fine starting at $500 per record. Also, not all consumers who have had their data stolen gave it to the organization willingly.
- sopooneo 2y ago
  Completely agree on this. A company-killing level of fine, based on number or records exposed, is appropriate. Then the insurance companies would not ensure companies unless they passed stringent audits around best practice and data hygiene.
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    There ought to be case studies about Transunion in the same classes in business schools where they discuss Bear Stearns.

acdha 2y ago

> where you get fined $50 for being stupid enough to give them the data in the first place. So … you don’t use banks, utilities, phone companies, healthcare, etc. and don’t apply for or accept non-anonymous jobs? This isn’t optional in many cases, which is why it really needs to be covered by legislation which shifts the cost to the company collecting that data.

giantg2 2y ago

It depends. Some industries would be able to happily pay that. Others have tight enough margins that they might feel real impact. Even 1 million users x $50 is a huge sum for most companies.

bradleyjg 2y ago

I’m no more insulted than if you told me I’m a fool because I don’t live in a cave in the Himalayas chanting mantras. Our visions of a life well lived are too different for you to be able to insult me.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
> Our visions of a life well lived are too different Well that didn't come over as humorless, tone-deaf, pompous or over-sensitive at all, thank goodness. I'll just get back to grunting and waving a jaw-bone in my cave, eating grubs and worms and smearing myself with my own faeces, then, shall I?
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  Matthew 7:3-5

batch12 2y ago

A better system would be one where the company paid a fine starting at $500 per record. Also, not all consumers who have had their data stolen gave it to the organization willingly.

sopooneo 2y ago
Completely agree on this. A company-killing level of fine, based on number or records exposed, is appropriate. Then the insurance companies would not ensure companies unless they passed stringent audits around best practice and data hygiene.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  There ought to be case studies about Transunion in the same classes in business schools where they discuss Bear Stearns.