4 ms·

There are approximately 115M households in the US [1], so does this mean that two of every three households is affected by this data breach? If so, why isn't th

There are approximately 115M households in the US [1], so does this mean that two of every three households is affected by this data breach? If so, why isn't there more panic? [1]: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

freehunter 12y ago
Because no one understands, so no one cares. Target and Home Depot didn't take any hit to their stock prices being the two biggest data breeches in a row. At worst, it registers as a minor inconvenience. I dropped Linode after they showed me multiple times I couldn't trust them with my data or my money. People still recommend them, trust them, and even try to convince people to come back because the breech of trust wasn't that bad. Even in the tech world where people should know the impact and should care, no one really does.
- chris_va 12y ago
  If you classify hundreds of millions of dollars in loss as a minor inconvenience...
  - dspillett 12y ago
    He was saying it registers with them as a minor inconvenience. There is some bad PR on the day of announcement a for a short time after, but people soon forget and the stock price is barely affected if at all, so those up top don't feel it in the slightest.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      For each individual customer, it's a minor inconvenience. Oh no, I have to get a new card and change my payments setup on Amazon. Once that's done, I don't care anymore.
ForHackernews 12y ago
Because nobody will be liable. If there's fraud on my credit card, I just phone Chase and they'll reverse the charges. In the scheme of daily irritations, this ranks well below a parking ticket.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  Your not wrong. Especially if you have been through it before, the apparatus for handling fraud, reversing it, and cleaning things up is so tight that it's hardly even distressing anymore. The biggest annoyance would be updating any recurring payments from that card. Which got me thinking: How much of my bank fees are spent on fraud prevention and clean up? How much cheaper could credit card processing and banking in general be if banks didn't need to spend BILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure, procedures, and automation to make these fraud cases go so smoothly?
  - jabagawee 12y ago
    The next question is: is that a tradeoff that is worth it?
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    The sticking point is that banks don't want to invest in a new system unless they can shift liability to the consumer, which is unpopular for very good reasons.

freehunter 12y ago

Because no one understands, so no one cares. Target and Home Depot didn't take any hit to their stock prices being the two biggest data breeches in a row. At worst, it registers as a minor inconvenience. I dropped Linode after they showed me multiple times I couldn't trust them with my data or my money. People still recommend them, trust them, and even try to convince people to come back because the breech of trust wasn't that bad. Even in the tech world where people should know the impact and should care, no one really does.

chris_va 12y ago
If you classify hundreds of millions of dollars in loss as a minor inconvenience...
- dspillett 12y ago
  He was saying it registers with them as a minor inconvenience. There is some bad PR on the day of announcement a for a short time after, but people soon forget and the stock price is barely affected if at all, so those up top don't feel it in the slightest.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    For each individual customer, it's a minor inconvenience. Oh no, I have to get a new card and change my payments setup on Amazon. Once that's done, I don't care anymore.

ForHackernews 12y ago

Because nobody will be liable. If there's fraud on my credit card, I just phone Chase and they'll reverse the charges. In the scheme of daily irritations, this ranks well below a parking ticket.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
colinbartlett 12y ago
Your not wrong. Especially if you have been through it before, the apparatus for handling fraud, reversing it, and cleaning things up is so tight that it's hardly even distressing anymore. The biggest annoyance would be updating any recurring payments from that card. Which got me thinking: How much of my bank fees are spent on fraud prevention and clean up? How much cheaper could credit card processing and banking in general be if banks didn't need to spend BILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure, procedures, and automation to make these fraud cases go so smoothly?
- jabagawee 12y ago
  The next question is: is that a tradeoff that is worth it?
- emodendroket 12y ago
  The sticking point is that banks don't want to invest in a new system unless they can shift liability to the consumer, which is unpopular for very good reasons.