3 ms·

How soon until ALL database fields that contain personal information are encrypted so that if a hacker gains access to the data it is useless without the progra

How soon until ALL database fields that contain personal information are encrypted so that if a hacker gains access to the data it is useless without the programs to actually access it? Why aren't we encrypting addresses, and SSN, and email, and phone number? Is this information not as important as a CC number? I think that we are starting to see that this might be almost as important if not on equal footing as our CC numbers.

wmeredith 12y ago
Encryption comes with overhead of some sort, this far, it's not worth it. (Apparently)
- thirsteh 12y ago
  It's also generally ineffective, and little more than a checkmark on a compliance sheet. Just because something is encrypted doesn't mean it's not trivially accessible and readable. Encryption, when it applies to systems that need unassisted access to data in a database, is hugely overrated.
- bkmartin 12y ago
  I find it hard to believe that a company line JP Morgan, the largest bank in the US can't afford to put enough computing power to reduce this overhead..... at $6 billion in profit in just the 2nd quarter alone I think they could afford to invest a couple of million dollars to make sure their customers' data is better secured.
  - wmeredith 12y ago
    I didn't say they couldn't afford it. I said it worth it (i.e. it's not profitable).
    - bkmartin 12y ago
      Lets think about this.... if they can spend maybe $10 million to be able to say to their customers... "We had a breach but your personal data was encrypted with the latest technology and is safe" vs "We had a data breach and 76 million house holds now have personally identifiable information up for sale across the black market." Do you think that the goodwill from the first statement would save them $10 million? My bet is that a bank actually being able to say that a breach was a non issue because they had actually taken all possible measures to protect your data with them because they actually might care about their customers just a tiny bit would easily drive them in a positive direction both in the short term and the long term.

wmeredith 12y ago

Encryption comes with overhead of some sort, this far, it's not worth it. (Apparently)

thirsteh 12y ago
It's also generally ineffective, and little more than a checkmark on a compliance sheet. Just because something is encrypted doesn't mean it's not trivially accessible and readable. Encryption, when it applies to systems that need unassisted access to data in a database, is hugely overrated.
bkmartin 12y ago
I find it hard to believe that a company line JP Morgan, the largest bank in the US can't afford to put enough computing power to reduce this overhead..... at $6 billion in profit in just the 2nd quarter alone I think they could afford to invest a couple of million dollars to make sure their customers' data is better secured.
- wmeredith 12y ago
  I didn't say they couldn't afford it. I said it worth it (i.e. it's not profitable).
  - bkmartin 12y ago
    Lets think about this.... if they can spend maybe $10 million to be able to say to their customers... "We had a breach but your personal data was encrypted with the latest technology and is safe" vs "We had a data breach and 76 million house holds now have personally identifiable information up for sale across the black market." Do you think that the goodwill from the first statement would save them $10 million? My bet is that a bank actually being able to say that a breach was a non issue because they had actually taken all possible measures to protect your data with them because they actually might care about their customers just a tiny bit would easily drive them in a positive direction both in the short term and the long term.