3 ms·

> Unless you find a way to make companies financially responsible for crappy security From a market perspective, would be enough if customers cared more about

by VMG 12y ago

> Unless you find a way to make companies financially responsible for crappy security From a market perspective, would be enough if customers cared more about these breaches and take took business elsewhere. Apparently they don't care.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> would be enough if customers cared more about these breaches and take took business elsewhere. If only they were spherical humans of uniform density... > Apparently they don't care. Well, they do, but they can't do anything about it. See, it's a very known problem with real humans - from boycotting Coca Cola for slaughtering people in poor countries, to tantalum capacitor production being based on even worse slaughter of men, women and children in poor countries, to the whole environmental fuckup we enjoy today - "voting with your wallet" doesn't work. People can't coordinate on a large enough scale, so they have to stick with the bad choices. Why should I move my business elsewhere, if the risk is unlikely and my competitor here will save money over me if he stays? And my competitor thinks the same, and neither of us move. It's the very case regulations exist for - it's much easier (and in reality, actually feasible) to coordinate people to ban all businesses from doing particular classes of shitty things. But honestly, I thought that's kind of economics 101, that this is market failure mode when it is applied to real, flesh and blood humans.
engendered 12y ago
Currently when there is a data breach, the source company is usually on the hook for nothing more than signing victims up for credit reporting for a year, a scheme that I would not be surprised is actually money making (e.g. providing thousands of great leads for a credit reporting agency has to be gravy). On the cost/benefit ratio, security of personal information just really doesn't matter in cases like this. There are some other companies, like Google, who would take a serious image hit, but for a pseudo-employer company like Uber there will be no ramifications. It isn't surprising that they deprioritize security -- the market doesn't demand it.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 12y ago
How do you take that argument when huge corporations like Target have been compromised too?

by VMG 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

> would be enough if customers cared more about these breaches and take took business elsewhere. If only they were spherical humans of uniform density... > Apparently they don't care. Well, they do, but they can't do anything about it. See, it's a very known problem with real humans - from boycotting Coca Cola for slaughtering people in poor countries, to tantalum capacitor production being based on even worse slaughter of men, women and children in poor countries, to the whole environmental fuckup we enjoy today - "voting with your wallet" doesn't work. People can't coordinate on a large enough scale, so they have to stick with the bad choices. Why should I move my business elsewhere, if the risk is unlikely and my competitor here will save money over me if he stays? And my competitor thinks the same, and neither of us move. It's the very case regulations exist for - it's much easier (and in reality, actually feasible) to coordinate people to ban all businesses from doing particular classes of shitty things. But honestly, I thought that's kind of economics 101, that this is market failure mode when it is applied to real, flesh and blood humans.

engendered 12y ago

Currently when there is a data breach, the source company is usually on the hook for nothing more than signing victims up for credit reporting for a year, a scheme that I would not be surprised is actually money making (e.g. providing thousands of great leads for a credit reporting agency has to be gravy). On the cost/benefit ratio, security of personal information just really doesn't matter in cases like this. There are some other companies, like Google, who would take a serious image hit, but for a pseudo-employer company like Uber there will be no ramifications. It isn't surprising that they deprioritize security -- the market doesn't demand it.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 12y ago

How do you take that argument when huge corporations like Target have been compromised too?