<< AT&T were attacked, by criminals. The criminals are the ones who did something wrong, but here you are immediately blaming the victim. You're assuming neglig

<< AT&T were attacked, by criminals. The criminals are the ones who did something wrong, but here you are immediately blaming the victim. You're assuming negligence on the part of AT&T, I am sure LEOs will do what they are paid to do and catch criminals. In the meantime, I would like to focus on service provider not being able to provide a reasonable level of privacy. I am blaming a corporation, because for most of us here it is an ongoing, recurring pattern that we have recognized and corporations effectively codified into simple deflection strategy. Do I assume the corporation messed up? Yes. But even if I didn't, there is a fair amount of historical evidence suggesting that security was not a priority. << Put another way - you trust a classical bank, with a money, to secure your money from criminals. Honestly, if average person saw how some of those decisions are made, I don't think a sane person would. << But the truth is, given the size and international nature of the internet, there are effectively armies of criminals, sometimes actually linked to governments, that have incredible incentives to breach organizations. It doesn't require negligence for a data breach to occur - with enough resources, almost any organization can be breached. Ahh, yes. Poor corporation has become too big of a target. Can you guess my solution to that? Yes, smaller corporation with MUCH smaller customer base and footprint so that even if the criminal element manages to squeeze through those defenses that the corporation made such a high priority ( so high ), the impact will be sufficiently minimal. I have argued for this before. We need to make hoarding data a liability. This is the only way to make this insanity stop.