Add the “Citizen United” verdict from the supreme’s and its all over for individuals having any say in what happens to us.
As I have said before, when I see company execs going to jail for company crimes, I’ll believe that bullshit line about “companies are people”.
1 Like
You mean assholes like this dude? Would that not be sweet? Never happen, but nice dream.
2 Likes
Alternate form, not original to me:
2 Likes
It won’t do any of those things…but I don’t buy the conclusion.
So, lets say murder is not illegal. If someone were to propose making murder illegal your argument amounts to “great, but three of my loved ones were already murdered, so this new making murder illegal is total horse crap”.
This may or may not be a good change for other reasons, but failure to retroactively fix past problems is not a reason to decide it is a load of crap.
The right measure is will it reduce future problems. Better yet will it reduce them without causing other problems that are at least as large. It is a failure if it doesn’t really reduce the issue, and also causes new useful products to come out slower or fail to come out.
That is mostly going to turn on what is considered negligence, if it is too weak all but the most blatant breaches will keep happening (and maybe even those too…“sure the data was unencrypted, but access to that database was subject to technical controls…technical controls like you had to be on a specific network, and know the password of the admin account was (drumroll) password in all caps”). If it is too strong it will delay or eliminate new products. For example if it is actually impossible to provide whatever level of safeguard is required. Or if the safeguard makes it so nobody can monitor a complex system in real time, then it breaks and nobody will look at the outage until after people complain, and so on.
1 Like
Fantastic idea. Make it the larger of $10k or 1% of the leaked person’s net worth plus 5% of the yearly income.
If the company is so big that they can’t keep it honest, how come the bigger it is the more scandalous their compensation? Sounds like someone is trying to have it both ways.
1 Like
No. I think you’ve made \a false equivalence.
Getting the murderer off the street makes me safer, and makes others safer. This kind of law does nothing to make me safer in context of the data already breached, and it does nothing to make you safer because your data is already out there too.
I am not suggesting we all just let our data hang out, waving in the breeze. I think there is an obligation to do our best. But the data will ALWAYS be breached, because this is entropy and a secret is very, very low entropy.
Rather than punish people who made a simple and honest mistake, I would rather try to reduce the damage done.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
