They are downplaying the severity of the data theft, which most likely includes user identification documents, the most dangerous type of breach, since it direc

They are downplaying the severity of the data theft, which most likely includes user identification documents, the most dangerous type of breach, since it directly enables identity theft Reading between the lines reveals the severity they're obfuscating, with contradictions: > This incident has not impacted our payment processing platform. The threat actors do not have, and never had, access to merchant funds or card numbers. > The system was used for internal operational documents and merchant onboarding materials at that time. > We have begun the process to identify and contact those impacted and are working closely with law enforcement and the relevant regulators They stress that "merchant funds or card numbers" weren't accessed, yet acknowledge contacting "impacted" users, this begs the question: how can users be meaningfully "impacted" by mere onboarding paperwork?