this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
464 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59438 readers
3303 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These companies should be forced to pay big money to each and every person affected by these breaches. Not like $120. Like $10,000 per. Teach them real lessons
But instead they will be fined, and they will pay that fine to the government.
They just pay up and do it again. It's a business expense, not a punishment.
I expect they get themselves insured for it
and then, us as the consumer will pay for the fine as well
I agree. Even at $120 each. 120 times tens of millions is serious fucking cash. We need to have a couple of big companies go bankrupt over this shit. Then maybe they will start taking it seriously. Perhaps at that point maintaining personal data on people will be seen as a liability rather than an asset. And that's what we really need.
Yep data protection should be life or death. Either that or make the executives personally responsible ie the fines come out of their pockets
Yup. We need more of the corporate death penalty. And when corporations are so big that 'killing' them would harm the economy, I argue we're back to too big to fail. Maybe the answer is giant fines, and if the company can't pay, wipe out the largest shareholders and then resell the stock over time. Make people's personal information a giant hot potato that nobody wants to be holding.
Why stop there? Abolish the corporate veil. Those motherfuckers can buy liability insurance.
Disagree. Breaking the corporate veil would have a whole lot of unintended consequences and would basically kill investment as a concept. I agree we need to do more about corporations that violate the law with impunity and get wrist slaps. I don't think that's it.
Why do you think it would kill investment despite liability insurance?
Because it would greatly increase the cost and risk of investment. Think not just for billionaires, but for anybody. Imagine somebody buys a couple tens of thousands of dollars of a stock as part of their retirement, that company does something bad, and now not only do they lose their investment but they lose the rest of their retirement also.
I am all for wiping out shareholders, especially big ones, when a company does something super stupid. There should be an incentive for shareholders to hold companies they invest in accountable.
But suggesting that company owners become personally liable for the actions of those companies, especially when those equity owners have little or no control over the decisions of the company, that is a recipe for disaster.
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? They assess the risk of that liability and average it out over time so you just pay a little bit of your return.
Oh I'm sure there would be insurance for that, but it would be expensive. It would dramatically reduce the amount of overall investment in the nation. That is a very bad thing, it would slow down the rate of our economy and innovation. Don't get me wrong, the current setup where companies treat your data like an asset and then lose it and nothing happens is broken. There need to be stiff penalties for it. Corporate death penalty even, especially with an ending of all too big to fail. I'm talking penalties scary to the point that whatever profit could be made from your personal information isn't worth the risk of having it, companies are scared to collect info. This would especially be true if there is negligence involved, like when companies put their databases on open S3 buckets. Companies should be scared shitless of that. But destroying our system of investment is not the answer.
The cost of that insurance doesn't just disappear - today it's paid by ordinary folks left holding the bill. A company that can't afford to pay for its expected damages is doing more harm than help to the economy.
This isn't just an answer to leaked databases. Companies can deliver profits when things go well, and then disappear after they ruin thousands of people's lives.
If a company ruins people's lives, I'm okay with them disappearing and all their investors losing their shirts.
I agree that a company that can't afford to pay for the damage it is causing is doing more harm than help and should go away.
What I think we can both absolutely agree on, is that the current system where companies forcibly collect all kinds of information on people, don't take security seriously, get breached, and the only punishment that happens is a few million dollars fine they can just write a check for and everyone affected gets a year of credit monitoring, is a broken system. In many of these breaches, they happen because the data was stored so poorly one could make a serious argument for gross negligence. When a company does this and the punishment is a wrist slap, I have a problem with that. It becomes a cost of doing business, not something company management is actually afraid of.
Also, as somebody who actually works in IT, I can tell you cyber insurance is a thing. For small businesses it covers this sort of breach. When you sign up for it they send you a whole questionnaire that asks about your security practices. It's all boilerplate bullshit. Real cybersecurity involves an insane amount of complexity and required understanding at every level, and the insurance questionnaire is like do you use multi-factor authentication for your email y/n?. If you check no you get a higher insurance premium.
Perhaps a solution would be a mandatory payment of $250 per person made directly to that person if their information is breached. And if the company fails to report it within 60 days, it triples. If the company intentionally conceals it, it quadruples. And should the company go bankrupt and liquidate, these payments to users will be considered the primary creditor and take priority over all others. So no more of this '$10 discount on your next purchase and a year of credit monitoring' class action settlements, put some real fucking teeth in a law. People would get some real compensation. And personal information would no longer be seen as a $20/person asset but rather as a potentially destroy the company liability.
Even $120 would be amazing. I just got an email that said too bad. I just bought a monitor cause that’s where they sold it. Idk why they have to save my info. I just want to pay for the product. If it was up to me, they would delete all my info immediately. They only need to record when the serial number was sold anyway.
Oh if only I was European.
The breach here is pretty minor, in my book. Name, address, specifics of computer purchased. The name and address is pretty much available and linked already. The computer isn't, but doesn't seem that abusable. Maybe it could help someone locate more-expensive, newer computers for theft, but I don't see a whole lot of potential room for abuse.
I do see potential room for abuse. Let say someone has the list and contact the members of the list saying that they are from Dell and it is about the computer they purchased. They have all details, spec, address, etc so it believable. Then they tell them to buy some “antivirus” or install some “hot fix” etc. Scammers are already doing this, but it is less convincing.
Exactly, a lot data exfil'd is used to enrich other sources. All data loss should be treated as a catastrophic failure of security controls. Corporate victims should pay for their customers potential loss of identity and privacy as a preemptive action, even if the data in of itself may be considered low risk. If compliance with this is difficult then executives should be forced under law to post all of their personal info into Wikipedia with audio samples of their voice, full genome mapping and mugshots. Fuck these companies and their profits over people attitude.
Now my friends know I bought an Alienware device. I'm never going to live this down.
A gamer cannot sink lower. Build your own if you care!
It's only minor if the data points in this breach are used by themselves.
Once you aggregate this with other data breaches, you could end up with a much bigger capability to target anyone in this breach.
Don’t care, punish them all the same.
afaict only if a specific hardware vulnerability was found and they cross-linked it with an online account or other network info to try and exploit it.
Or, I guess you could just assume Windows and go with one of the many zero-days that happen there. The trick is still crosslinking them tho. Presumably google has the wifi info.
Instantly makes ~~ransomware~~ [edit 2: my brain was being dumb, I didn't mean literally ransomware, I meant hackers blackmailing companies with the threat of releasing/selling stolen data] far more profitable.
Edit: And heavily discourages self-reporting. There’s a Schneier quote I like: “You can't defend. You can't prevent. The only thing you can do is detect and respond.”
If the data is breached, won't we find out anyways once they start selling it?
Absolutely. But the penalty does modify the cost-benefit analysis. If a hacker demands $5m or else they will release stolen data, you might be more inclined to YOLO the 5 mil on the 1% chance they're an honest hacker if the penalty for the breach is $50bn.
Exactly... Meanwhile some poor soul goes to jail because he is too broke to pay for some parking fines
In the case of this breach, I'd be happy with a $10 payout, the consequences for me are actually pretty low here. That being said, I think we'd be lucky if Dell had to pay more than $0.50 per person, and that money will probably go to a lawyer's fees, not me.