[nafizh]

Isn't it time we criminalize any kind of data leaks by a company? This has to be seriously discussed now. That is the only way we can make these companies keep data security at the top of their priority list.

I know it is a subsidiary of paypal, not paypal itself, but that is irrelevant.

[blattimwind]

FTFY: That is the only way we can make sure companies will avoid disclosing breaches for sure and to have them pursue a burnt-and-salted-earth-approach towards anyone who might turn up evidence of a breach.

[cwbrandsma]

Pretty much becomes “blame the messenger” in a hurry. That and these comments quickly become “why didn’t they just do it the ‘right’ way...as if such a thing existed. With security there is no right way, just many known wrong ways.

I got into a discussion once about how to properly handle passwords (cause somebody has to do it). There is no right answer, just lots and lots of wrong ones. Don’t encrypt, hash. But not that hash, use another...and not any of those over there; and sure as shit don’t write one yourself. Use an off-the-shelf hash...just not any that you have access to now. Not that one either, we don’t recognize the author by name...and not the other one because we don’t like the owner of the company (who is not a developer).

TL:DR, if you write code that needed security...eventually you are fucked.

[aseipp]

If your development priorities are so unbelievably messed up they can't look into basic fundamentals like PBKDF2 or bcrypt, and you hoard large amounts of personal data, and you get compromised, and you think it's not your fault -- your company should not exist.

> Not that one either, we don’t recognize the author by name...and not the other one because we don’t like the owner of the company (who is not a developer).

This is quite obviously bad rhetoric (outright dumb, I'd say.) But let's say it's remotely true: you think "complete dysfunction, and inability to analyze root problems" -- that it's a reason why we shouldn't crack down these people?

Doctors make mistakes. Everyone knows that. Sometimes it's negligence, sometimes it's tragedy, sometimes it's just random happenstance or Friday the 13th or whatever. But for some reason, we don't interpret this as a blank cheque to let any jackass on the street legally operate on people, risking their lives, and then -- when they hurt someone -- we all throw up our hands, sigh, and say -- "well dang, at least Frito Pendejo, he tried really hard, tried his best and doctors, y'know, medicine is crazy and uncertain!!! there are no right answers!!!"

[adrianN]

Yes, security is hard. If there were real consequences to data breaches, then maybe companies would think twice before collecting every scrap of personal information that they can get their hands on. Large databases of personal information need to be seen as liability, not as an asset.

[electrum]

The "how to hash passwords" discussion should be easy: use PBKDF2, which is an IETF standard specified in RFC 8018 (originally specified in 2898 from the year 2000).

[dawnbreez]

Perhaps if the penalty is based on days since exposure--immediately revealing the breach gets you a minimal fine, but waiting six weeks is enough to cause a major fine (or add to sentences for fraudulent trading related to the incident), and years is even bigger?

[orbitingpluto]

Don't blame the victim. But hiding that there was a leak? Sure.

[nafizh]

The victim is not the company. It is the users - people like you and me. Let me say it again - companies are NOT the victims.

[calvano915]

Companies have a reasonable obligation to protect our data, so I'm with you if they were negligent in prevention, detection, mitigation, or revelation. If they took reasonable measures to prevent, and were forthcoming if compromised anyway, and took measures to minimize damage to users, there's no reason to blame them.

[adrianN]

"We used best practices to protect your data" is such a bullshit excuse. If a bank gets robbed its customers aren't told "sorry your money is gone, but we had it behind a locked door, so we're not liable".

If a company decides to collect, store and profit off of my personal data and they lose it, I really don't care about "best practices". They profited from my data, they have to pay if they lose it. The company always has the choice of not storing the data in the first place, if they can't bear the risk of a substantial fine in case my data is disclosed.

[rectang]

It's OUR data, and WE as individuals are the ones who have to clean up the mess after aggregators spill it.

Perfect security is impossible, but let's not forget 1) who is harmed, or 2) who is getting rich and who will in a worst case will cut their losses, go bankrupt, then start another company with the accumulated weath.

[chrishacken]

Then don't give your data to anyone. Perfect security doesn't exist, no matter how hard you try or how much money you throw at the problem. Breaches happen, end of story.

So the real issue should be: When and how will a new secure form of identity be created, used, and made available. Social security numbers were never intended to be used in the manner in which they are.

[chronic824]

It's not YOUR data. It belongs to the COMPANY. If I draw a sketch of you sitting on a subway, sorry, but you don't own the sketch.

[doesnt_know]

In my country (NZ), it is my data. It's the literal law that any agent that collects personal information needs to follow a number of rules. (Search for NZ privacy Act for the gory details).

I'm allowed access to the information, and can request that it be updated. They can't keep the information longer then is necessary, they can't use it for anything other than the original collection purposes, they have to take reasonable measures to secure it, they can't disclose it etc.

I won't harp on about the details, but it's relatively well thought out (apart from some limitations regarding the reporting of breaches, but there are changes in the pipeline to patch that up).

[adrianN]

That may be the case in the US, but here in Germany I could sue you if you made that picture public. Here people have the right to decide whether pictures of them can be made public or not (with some exceptions).

[sametmax]

What about health data ? Children school info ? Company trades in email ? Do you really want to play that card ?