3 ms·
I know that people don't like lawsuits. But for security to work there should be consequences for not doing security right. To give you an example, if a company
by lsh123 13y ago
I know that people don't like lawsuits. But for security to work there should be consequences for not doing security right. To give you an example, if a company X doesn't have any risks or damages from lack of security, then company X should not be investing in security to save money. However, if there is a monetary (or other) liability from a security breach, then the company X will have to make a choice and hopefully they will invest in security.
- jonknee 13y agoThat would make sense if you had a signed contract from Google that they were encrypting their internal traffic. I don't have that and I doubt anyone else does either. If the courts get involved it should 100% be at the hacking perpetrator, not to the victim.
- declan 13y agoSide note: Sec 702 of the FAA gives NSA complete immunity from all federal, state, and local laws, criminal prosecutions, and civil lawsuits when doing this kind of fiber tapping. "Notwithstanding" is an extremely powerful phrase. Wildcard. Trumps all other laws. (And this is why some of us were concerned about CISPA, which uses the identical language. Note CISPA's proponents have quietly faded into the woodwork post-Snowden revelations.)