|
|
|
|
|
by amf12
2838 days ago
|
|
> There are three people across three different parts of the world who corroborate the report - CTO of a global technology group, a security based analyst and a professor of Computer Science. I wonder how this is "sensationalist". OP is not negating the problem. However, the title implies that the existing database has been breached, which is not true. Author could have given a better title which implies that ghost entries could be added and existing data has not been compromised. |
|
at this point the purpose of the exercise has been voided.
Saying that "the data has not been compromised" is a red herring, thats the case for when our biomterics are lost and our privacy breached which is a whole different issue with this database, one among many of its other problems.
At this point if the data is crud, whats the point of using this system?