Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Equifax and other financial firms are fighting tooth and nail a proposal that would decrease the amount of time their CEOs have to cash out their stocks before notifying consumers that they let hackers take all your data   ( bloomberg.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Consumer protection, data breach, breach notification, data breach notification, massive data breach, breach notification laws, national standard, Law  
•       •       •

803 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Mar 2018 at 7:50 AM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



14 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-03-07 07:37:14 AM  
How about this:

If the company gets hacked, so does the CEO. . . with a walmart hatchet.
 
2018-03-07 08:27:34 AM  
To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.
 
2018-03-07 08:48:14 AM  

Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.


That's pretty much it.  Business aren't going to stop using Equifax (or any of the Big 3) because it got hacked; that has no effect on them, and businesses need to check people's credit ratings.  Equifax doesn't give a shiat about the people whose information they have because people are the commodity and have zero power over them -- they can't speak with their wallet because their wallet, other than potentially being virtually stolen, doesn't pay their salaries and bonuses.  So credit reporting agencies are in a unique position of essentially being beholden to no one and having their success be a product of simply existing and being a service every business pretty much has to use.

They can only be made to care about security if it's too expensive for them not to, and because of their position, that can only happen if they are legally required to and have to pay through the nose if they fail -- at the very least, if their failure is determined to be caused by an insufficient effort to secure their data.
 
2018-03-07 08:48:46 AM  
It isn't like you can take your business elsewhere. Your data is their business. You are just a commodity to them. Wait til they join their credit ratings with other data which will directly impact your ability to get a job, rent, an automobile, etc.

Sucks to be us, I guess.
 
2018-03-07 09:01:07 AM  

Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.


I've got it!

If they are hacked, the members of the board and top management have all their personal data published on the front page of every newspaper and web site.
 
2018-03-07 09:26:56 AM  
Why aren't these companies required to encrypt their (our) data?  It wouldn't solve the problem where they occasionally sell our data to the 'hackers', but it would provide at least some level of security when they actually get hacked.  Encryption should be required of any company who stores social security numbers.
 
2018-03-07 09:31:31 AM  
And they'll win. It's open season on rules and regulations that bother the 1%.
 
2018-03-07 11:32:31 AM  

Psychopusher: Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.

That's pretty much it.  Business aren't going to stop using Equifax (or any of the Big 3) because it got hacked; that has no effect on them, and businesses need to check people's credit ratings.  Equifax doesn't give a shiat about the people whose information they have because people are the commodity and have zero power over them -- they can't speak with their wallet because their wallet, other than potentially being virtually stolen, doesn't pay their salaries and bonuses.  So credit reporting agencies are in a unique position of essentially being beholden to no one and having their success be a product of simply existing and being a service every business pretty much has to use.

They can only be made to care about security if it's too expensive for them not to, and because of their position, that can only happen if they are legally required to and have to pay through the nose if they fail -- at the very least, if their failure is determined to be caused by an insufficient effort to secure their data.


Well, if you were to own all information about you, them Was would become a custodian with fiduciary responsibilities. And you could demand a cut for every time they sell your information.

/Won't happen.
//Would work.
 
2018-03-07 11:35:12 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Psychopusher: Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.

That's pretty much it.  Business aren't going to stop using Equifax (or any of the Big 3) because it got hacked; that has no effect on them, and businesses need to check people's credit ratings.  Equifax doesn't give a shiat about the people whose information they have because people are the commodity and have zero power over them -- they can't speak with their wallet because their wallet, other than potentially being virtually stolen, doesn't pay their salaries and bonuses.  So credit reporting agencies are in a unique position of essentially being beholden to no one and having their success be a product of simply existing and being a service every business pretty much has to use.

They can only be made to care about security if it's too expensive for them not to, and because of their position, that can only happen if they are legally required to and have to pay through the nose if they fail -- at the very least, if their failure is determined to be caused by an insufficient effort to secure their data.

Well, if you were to own all information about you, them Was would become a custodian with fiduciary responsibilities. And you could demand a cut for every time they sell your information.

/Won't happen.
//Would work.


Hope the blue screaming fark did Equifax mutate into Was?
 
2018-03-07 11:48:37 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Psychopusher: Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.

That's pretty much it.  Business aren't going to stop using Equifax (or any of the Big 3) because it got hacked; that has no effect on them, and businesses need to check people's credit ratings.  Equifax doesn't give a shiat about the people whose information they have because people are the commodity and have zero power over them -- they can't speak with their wallet because their wallet, other than potentially being virtually stolen, doesn't pay their salaries and bonuses.  So credit reporting agencies are in a unique position of essentially being beholden to no one and having their success be a product of simply existing and being a service every business pretty much has to use.

They can only be made to care about security if it's too expensive for them not to, and because of their position, that can only happen if they are legally required to and have to pay through the nose if they fail -- at the very least, if their failure is determined to be caused by an insufficient effort to secure their data.

Well, if you were to own all information about you, them Was would become a custodian with fiduciary responsibilities. And you could demand a cut for every time they sell your information.

/Won't happen.
//Would work.


This. The only thing these assholes understand or respect is profit. Take the profit motive out of ignoring security and it'll get better. I'd love to see our information become OUR property. But I fear it won't happen anytime soon.
 
2018-03-07 12:11:13 PM  

Catlenfell: And they'll win. It's open season on rules and regulations that bother the 1%.


They already announced it 1 week ago, so, no?
 
2018-03-07 12:12:41 PM  
GDPR is starting to make CEOs of  global companies start to pay attention. The penalties are steep.

Now I just need to convince them that GDPR should be applied everywhere even if not mandated.
 
2018-03-07 12:24:04 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'd love to see our information become OUR property. But I fear it won't happen anytime soon.


Yeah, that's not going to happen for a very, very long time.  It's taken how long to get the ability just to have copies of our own medical records to take between different care providers?  And we're still not even fully there yet; they're still fighting that ability.
 
2018-03-07 02:19:26 PM  

Rapmaster2000: To make Equifax care about security, you have to make it expensive for them to do so.  The problem with security is that it's seen as a cost and not a feature.  Because you're Equifax's product and not their customer, it's impossible to make them see security as a feature.  It's just an increased cost on their product (you).  In this situation, there is probably not a business case that could be made for increasing security.  You need punitive government intervention.

The above is also why a libertarian society would be terrible for 99% of humanity.


A libertarian society would also allow us to maim anyone working for Equifax, which is a wonderful incentive for data security if you think about it.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report