4 ms·
Judging by the Subway example which spent "5 millions $" to upgrade its "cyber security systems" (what?), almost any direct or indirect loss or cost incurred du
by leaveyou 13y ago
Judging by the Subway example which spent "5 millions $" to upgrade its "cyber security systems" (what?), almost any direct or indirect loss or cost incurred during or after the hacker attack can be imputed to the perpetrator. It's like if I have a weak entrance door and some thief enters and steals something then I can say that he caused me loses of millions because I had to upgrade all the doors in the house and hire detectives and a security company to guard me better from now on.
- happyscrappy 13y agoPortray them as victims if it helps your world view, but I will not lose any sleep over their fines that will never be repaid.
- x0x0 13y agoTrying to lay the bill for making your systems secure at the feet of the individual hackers who got into your systems seems wrong. I'm not arguing that what these guys did was legal or good or that they shouldn't be prosecuted, but something about that grates; it's an expense the company (should have) paid beforehand and these guys wouldn't have been able to do what they did. If a system is on the internet, securing it is a cost that has to be born by the retailer.