• Substance_P@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    8 months ago

    “it’s not known whether the leak came from within the company or one of its vendors.”

    Isn’t it time that big tech companies and their sale of private data get regulated? I see a giant class-action lawsuit in the making here.

    • Lodra@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is regulated. And there are penalties for violating those regulations. But it’s just not enough. Even a class action lawsuit won’t help the victims. Most of that money goes to lawyers.

      Honestly, I don’t expect any of it to change until the penalties are so severe that major companies go under. Aka a corporate death penalty (which the US used to have). But even then, good software security is extremely hard. Almost everyone screws up something.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Aka a corporate death penalty (which the US used to have). But even then, good software security is extremely hard. Almost everyone screws up something.

        So corps would be regularly “executed” because of not getting it right at some point and that leading to such events.

        What’s bad about that?

        Companies are market entities, they are supposed to live for some time and die, so that evolutionary process would work.

        Right now it’s like titans eating their children, they should die from regulator’s axe, ideally at the very moment when mistakes stop being sufficient to kill them.

    • coolmojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is. The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information. Source

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Social Security numbers should really not be considered secret data. Too many places have leaked them.

    Maybe – maybe – they’re okay for uniquely-identifying someone, but they’re a really bad way to authenticate someone.

    I mean, this breach alone – if these are Americans – is something like 20% of the US population.

    You can’t rely on something as authentication data if 20% of the population has irrevocable credentials that are floating around.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      I heard a security researcher say something like that a couple decades ago I think. The solution isn’t to “safeguard SSN’s”, it’s to make them pointless to have. Make it so you can’t do anything with them.

      Like you point out: this one breach alone could be 1/4 of the us population.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        For serious, emergency recovery, what I’d kind of like is some kind of service that performs physical validation of identity. Like, okay, say I lose my credentials to get into a bank account. So the bank gives me a recovery number, and I go down to the police station or something like that, and they do an identity check as part of that and sign off that you’re who you say you are. Then if you’re an identity thief, you’re liable to get arrested right there. Charge a fee to cover the costs. Have a federal government server have to cryptographically sign that they’re doing an identity validation so that the local cops can’t silently sign off on someone else as being you. That should only come up if you’ve lost your credentials to something serious and need to get access again.

        As an intermediate form of access, I suppose 2FA, though I’m not totally thrilled about having my keystore on a device that’s network-connected, like a phone or computer, and has software getting put on it. Would rather have a physical USB-C dongle acting as a keystore with a small screen to identify the contents of a transaction being performed, and a physical “approve” button on the dongle. Plug that into a computer or smartphone or whatever. Maybe have different dongles for more- and less-sensitive stuff – one for credit card payments that you carry around, one for insurance or something that you don’t. Use pubkey authentication, not this shared-secret SSN stuff, so that if someone gets a company’s database, it’s useless in terms of letting them authenticate as you.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Just because way too many sites have a security that more or less non-existent, this should not be an excuse. Every breach should be severely punished. The only way corporations learn to take customer data safety seriously is through their wallets.

      As long as customer data safety is just a cost factor, and penalties are just a mild slap on the wrist, there is no incentive to consider this as “just another cost of running business issue”.

  • minimalfootprint@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why companies aren’t fined for every customers data they didn’t secure properly is beyond me. This should cost them a specific sum per customer or part of their annual global revenue. Make it hurt.

    Otherwise they have no reason to spend money to properly secure people’s data.

    • RedEye FlightControl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      You think they’re going to send notices to ex-customers? I was an ATT customer for 2 decades and switched a few years ago. I’m wondering if I’m compromised, but won’t get notice because I’m not technically an active customer.