> An apology (with guarantees and plans for improvement with oversight) is better than put a low price and call it cost of doing business How when this is a 0

> An apology (with guarantees and plans for improvement with oversight) is better than put a low price and call it cost of doing business How when this is a 0 price of doing business? And there is a plan: "the University has increased its vigilance in securing information that it maintains", after all "The safety and privacy of all members of the University community are a top priority" https://system.umn.edu/data-incident https://system.umn.edu/data-incident (this is from 23, not 21). And I'm sure there is some admin position for "oversight"! So if you're after empty words, they have those in spades! And would add the apology you requested if not for the extra legal cost, so I don't see how any of that is better. > Also I don't understand the logic Because you've perverted the logic from into some vague metaphorical abuse that can harm every time it happens. > Why do we accept this in such case and not in others? We don't because settlements such as this do not depend on whether the info is already public, so you get paid regardless. But also because in such case there is no harm (info is already public), and in other cases there is. > why would that change anything? for the exact same reason - because harm depends on the first publishing and you were talking about compensating for harm