4 ms·

There's no way to make the software perfectly safe from hackers and from social engineering. So, yes, companies should be more careful with the data and, yes, t

by throwaway120724 2y ago

There's no way to make the software perfectly safe from hackers and from social engineering. So, yes, companies should be more careful with the data and, yes, the data shouldn't be kept forever. I agree companies should be doing more to protect the data. I see lots of outrage at the companies and why isn't the government doing more to punish them and how do I get compensated ... But, I feel like everyone is blaming the victim. Is it the home owners fault when someone breaks in and steals stuff? Where's the outrage at the hackers breaking into these accounts? Where's the "why aren't the governments tracking these people down?" Why is no one demanding that the hackers be brought to justice?

rightbyte 2y ago
> But, I feel like everyone is blaming the victim. Is it the home owners fault when someone breaks in and steals stuff? > Where's the outrage at the hackers breaking into these accounts? The internet is essentially every hooligan in the world about to kick in your dooor. So yes, I blame the home owner. It seems silly to me to condemn anonymous users of the internet. Back in the days when nothing of importance was done on the internet the view was way more healty. If you have sensitive data, don't expose it to the hooligans. Easy as that.
metabagel 2y ago
> There's no way to make the software perfectly safe from hackers and from social engineering. This is a straw man argument. Companies should use best practices in order to prevent most intrusions. When they do not, as in this case, criticism is warranted.
throwway120385 2y ago
The problem with analogies is that they're a leaky abstraction. You're comparing a single person with maybe a handful of employees to a giant, multinational corporation with corporate offices, hundreds of thousands of employees, enough real-estate to create a small country, and billions of dollars per year in revenue. It's a false equivalence to compare this to door kicking like it was some kind of petty theft. They literally kept everyone's information in a machine that was connected to the internet and then didn't make any effort to treat that with the gravitas it deserves. They are not the victim here, we are. It's a little shameful that you don't see that.

rightbyte 2y ago

> But, I feel like everyone is blaming the victim. Is it the home owners fault when someone breaks in and steals stuff? > Where's the outrage at the hackers breaking into these accounts? The internet is essentially every hooligan in the world about to kick in your dooor. So yes, I blame the home owner. It seems silly to me to condemn anonymous users of the internet. Back in the days when nothing of importance was done on the internet the view was way more healty. If you have sensitive data, don't expose it to the hooligans. Easy as that.

metabagel 2y ago

> There's no way to make the software perfectly safe from hackers and from social engineering. This is a straw man argument. Companies should use best practices in order to prevent most intrusions. When they do not, as in this case, criticism is warranted.

throwway120385 2y ago

The problem with analogies is that they're a leaky abstraction. You're comparing a single person with maybe a handful of employees to a giant, multinational corporation with corporate offices, hundreds of thousands of employees, enough real-estate to create a small country, and billions of dollars per year in revenue. It's a false equivalence to compare this to door kicking like it was some kind of petty theft. They literally kept everyone's information in a machine that was connected to the internet and then didn't make any effort to treat that with the gravitas it deserves. They are not the victim here, we are. It's a little shameful that you don't see that.