[estimator7292]

The problem is that they don't "need" to. There's no consequences for not caring, and no incentive to care.

We need laws and a competent government to force these companies to care by levying significant fines or jail time for executives depending on severity. Not fines like 0.00002 cents per exposed customers, existential fines like 1% of annual revinue for each exposed customer. If you fuck up bad enough, your company burns to the ground and your CEO goes to jail type consequences.

[rafram]

This kind of response went out of fashion after Enron. Burning an entire company to the ground (in that case Arthur Andersen) and putting thousands out of work because of the misdeeds of a few - even if they were due to companywide culture problems - turned out to be disproportionate, wasteful, and cruel.

[knome]

the answer to that is a functional social safety net for the innocent employees to land in, not allowing companies to violate the law with impunity.

[hluska]

First off, adults use capital letters. I know it’s hard but it’s a basic part of our language. I would respect you and your arguments more if you used them. Second, your idea is as naive as your writing is poor. The issue with AA was that accounting doesn’t provide a lot of bounce and recover space for people whose firms go belly up in the way that AA did. A social safety net has precisely zero to do with the loss of a lot of dreams.

If you read more you’d know that (and you would use capitals).

[knome]

and I might respect your opinions if they weren't couched in vapid complaints over the formatting of casual online intercourse. nobody with an argument of substance starts off with a complaint on the casing of someone's statement.

if true, your claim of the inability of the financial worker sector to absorb masses of workers dumped from a company going under due to fraud committed by the company sounds like exactly something that a social safety net would assist with, giving the workers a larger space to safely transition from one position to another.

an emotional appeal to insist on allowing a company engaged in criminal acts to persist because it might have a negative impact on those working for it isn't logical. if the company valued its employees, it shouldn't have engaged in fraud and been folded under as it deserved.

[rafram]

You’re describing a system where taxpayers foot the bill for data breaches.

[wry_durian]

That's exactly backwards. In the current regime, it's precisely the billions of people who are affected by data breaches (and who happen to be taxpayers!) who are footing the bill.

[matheusmoreira]

Not at all. Make the guilty corporation pay for all of it.

[folkrav]

We already are in a system where we foot most of the consequences.

[drstewart]

This. Severe harsh consequences are the best way to prevent crime.

If we also make the penalty for every crime the death penalty we'll have no more crime. Very simple solution no one has thought of.

[amelius]

If the government wants me to take copyright and IP laws seriously, then they need to take my personal information seriously too.

[amelius]

Yes, it makes sense as both are about the value we give to information.

[hluska]

This is genuinely the stupidest thing I have read today. I get that anti-capitalism is cool now but this is fucking insane. You want to incarcerate someone for exposing email addresses on a public service? Absolute madness.