3 ms·

The only person guaranteeing this is the case and will stay the case is the person keeping your passwords. That seems to me to be a pretty wild thing to have fa

The only person guaranteeing this is the case and will stay the case is the person keeping your passwords. That seems to me to be a pretty wild thing to have faith in.

Retric 2y ago
Companies aren’t people. Compare the benefits to a multi trillion dollar company to maintain security vs the minimal benefits from using your passwords for anything. They really want to avoid the risk from anyone inside the company having access to your passwords and then doing anything with them.
- Sindisil 2y ago
  Indeed, companies are not people. Compare the consequences for a large company vs an individual. For the individual, if caught, a debilitating fine and, depending upon damages, jail time. Probable end of career, if related. In short, life changing. For the company, possible fine almost certainly less than the revenue made. Small chance of larger civil suits, with legal costs and possible judgments. Depending upon visibility, perhaps some additional PR spend. Even if the sum total cost is greater than the associated revenue, those costs can be used to offset tax liability. In short, low risk of existential threat, or even actual financial loss -- just reduced profits.
  - onetokeoverthe 2y ago
    The company will also consider the benefits of cooperating with Spook Agency Inc. Maybe a plunge protection stock-price guarantee. Or NOT.
  - Retric 2y ago
    A person is likely not to be caught making their downside a fraction to their personal well-being and finances. 1/3 of the people on early would easily see more upside than downside from getting access to your banking info. Apple on the other hand would see your bank balance as a rounding error to a rounding error, but could easily lose a billion dollar from bad publicity that’s what’s balancing vs any financial upsides. Further, doing it once doesn’t move the needle it needs massive scale and thus massive risks to be worth anything to them.

The only person guaranteeing this is the case and will stay the case is the person keeping your passwords. That seems to me to be a pretty wild thing to have faith in.

Retric 2y ago

Companies aren’t people. Compare the benefits to a multi trillion dollar company to maintain security vs the minimal benefits from using your passwords for anything. They really want to avoid the risk from anyone inside the company having access to your passwords and then doing anything with them.

Sindisil 2y ago
Indeed, companies are not people. Compare the consequences for a large company vs an individual. For the individual, if caught, a debilitating fine and, depending upon damages, jail time. Probable end of career, if related. In short, life changing. For the company, possible fine almost certainly less than the revenue made. Small chance of larger civil suits, with legal costs and possible judgments. Depending upon visibility, perhaps some additional PR spend. Even if the sum total cost is greater than the associated revenue, those costs can be used to offset tax liability. In short, low risk of existential threat, or even actual financial loss -- just reduced profits.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  The company will also consider the benefits of cooperating with Spook Agency Inc. Maybe a plunge protection stock-price guarantee. Or NOT.
- Retric 2y ago
  A person is likely not to be caught making their downside a fraction to their personal well-being and finances. 1/3 of the people on early would easily see more upside than downside from getting access to your banking info. Apple on the other hand would see your bank balance as a rounding error to a rounding error, but could easily lose a billion dollar from bad publicity that’s what’s balancing vs any financial upsides. Further, doing it once doesn’t move the needle it needs massive scale and thus massive risks to be worth anything to them.