The third largest breach ever just happened in Finland. Passwords were stored in plaintext. At T-Mobile Austria, they explain that of course they store the password in plaintext, but they have so good security so it's nothing to worry about. At what point does this become criminally negligent?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
At What Point Does Storing Passwords in Plaintext Become Criminally Negligent
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 138 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @02:28PM (59 children)
The basis of a free society is caveat emptor
However, if company advertises cutting-edge security, but doesn't actually implement any such thing, then there might be a case for criminal proceedings.
Otherwise, you can fuck off with your "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!!111".
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @02:50PM (54 children)
We're increasingly coerced into creating web accounts for online billing (etc) and almost every website has a privacy policy. There is a good claim it's fraud when a website claims to respect your privacy but then leaks a plain text password alongside an email address. You should not even have to wade through a website's terms and conditions, statutory rights should dictate base expectations for these contracts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:31PM (44 children)
Oh, but that would be a Violently-Imposed Monopoly, and we can't have THAT *rolls eyes*
The guy you're replying to is a borderline-spammer with some kind of axe to grind that makes him post on every single goddamn thread about how SOMEHOW government or regulation or suchlike is responsible for all the world's evils. I really wish he'd be troll-modded into oblivion.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:59PM (38 children)
Government regulation isn't responsible for most of the world's evils. It is, however, one of the world's evils.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:51PM (3 children)
Sure, Uzzard. Enjoy your radium toothpaste, dumbass...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:47PM
If it weren’t for the FDA, people would be eating dirt and chairs!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @01:35AM (1 child)
Don't forget the Radium Ore Revigorator [wikipedia.org], is essential for white teeth - yeah, sure, they may no longer be stuck in your gums, but they will be a brilliant white.
Oh, yes, supplement it with Radithor [wikipedia.org] - "a cure for the living dead" and a "perpetual sunshine".
On the other side, another "evil against free market" (the one that cleared the US skies) was signed into existence by Nixon [wikipedia.org]. Weird times those, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @10:34AM
Nixon, that bloody commie!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:56PM (28 children)
It's one of the worlds evils, and it *can* be used to reduce many of the other of the worlds evils. Some example uses are standard weights and measures, regulations ensuring purity, etc.
It's got lots of problems, but anarchy doesn't scale because reputation requires personal knowledge. Anarchy quickly evolves into warlordism, which is one of the worse forms of government, but does allow for groups of larger than about 250 to work together. (This is related to Dunbar's number. It's larger because of segmentation.)
If you want a civilization with fast communication and fast transportation (with fast meaning "faster than walking speed") you need to have a government of some sort. Larger civilizations with faster communication and transportation limit the forms of government that will work. But *any* form of government is going to have some regulations. Calling them "evil" sort of misses the point, and reveals a mind set that is theologically focused. They *are* inherently constraining, but some constraints are necessary if people are going to live together in large groups (with large being relative to speed of communication, speed of transport, and Dunbar's number.
All that said, *excessive* regulations, and *unfair* regulations are undesirable, and don't support a just society or liberty. Although, as indicated, liberty must, necessarily, be limited if people are to live in a society, it is still an intrinsic good, and should be *one* of the things that the society is structured to maximize.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:13PM (6 children)
You and I are on exactly the same page here. This is a realistic, rational, and experimentally-tested position to hold. Now how do we convince the idiots like Mr. Vim and Uzzard up there?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:07PM (5 children)
It means society without rulers.
You cannot have both rulers and rules; you must choose.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:14PM (4 children)
That is some Deepak-Chopra-level deepity horseshit. Do you even think about the things you say before you post them?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:39PM (3 children)
Try to find a ruler that obeys the rules. Not that we should follow the example, but monkey see, monkey do...
Anyone who complains about the government needs only to look at the voters. Everything else is a waste of time and a distraction, and psychological case of denial.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @02:02AM (2 children)
The best form of government would be the benevolent tyrant. A person who is honorable and could be depended on to stand by his or her word. The problem with that is that such a person if not mythical is so rare they might as well be mythical, and that if you even found one, what would the chances of there being 2 in a row ?
Since we have to live in the very imperfect real world all the forms of government generally suck, and your statement about the voters getting what they deserve hits the nail on the head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress [wikipedia.org]
I've always personally identified with the above but reality keeps intruding...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @07:32AM (1 child)
So, Linus for president?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @07:07PM
I am not so sure. I met him long ago at the 10th annual Linux picnic, and while I respect him for his technical abilities and the work he has done with Linux he is not so benevolent and can be autocratic. I am not sure I can point to anyone I would consider suitable for the job in the recent past. That is part of what makes the system so unreliable. Too bad King Arthur and Superman are fictional. Jesus would probably have been a good candidate.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:17PM
Anarchy quickly evolves into warlordism
You haven't noticed what democracy devolves into? I mean, it's not like we haven't seen it before. And you could just read the book Lord of the Flies. Anarchism simply implies 'rules without rulers', something that might not be possible in the physical universe, but we should work on being nice without being forced. You gotta grant the colonies some autonomy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:52PM
My usual summary of the issue:
1. To say government can do no wrong is stupid, because government can and has done wrong. Furthermore, that belief means the government will have your support regardless of whether it does right or does wrong, giving it no incentive to do right.
2. To say government can do no right is equally stupid, because government can and has done right. Furthermore, that belief means the government will have your opposition regardless of whether it does right or does wrong, giving it no incentive to do right.
The right starting place is "What is the right thing for the government to do in this situation?" Answering "nothing" is sometimes right (the libertarians are absolutely correct to start with this idea), and sometimes wrong (crooks of all kinds would love to avoid government scrutiny).
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @08:22PM (18 children)
Didn't say it wasn't a necessary evil. I'm libertarian not stupid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @09:02PM (6 children)
Holy Moses, that is a nice clean fastball right down the center line over home plate just asking to be hit so far out of the park it'll need peanuts and tiny bottles of liquor on it, LOL.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @09:18PM
What drugs are you on?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @10:57PM (4 children)
Try it. I guarantee you I've put more thought into any political or economic topic than you have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (3 children)
Are you trying to make me wet myself laughing or what? At least put a warning up top the next time you drop a lulzbomb like that!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:20AM (2 children)
No, really. Go for it. You have yet to beat me with a rational argument in any discussion we've ever had. I'm interested, but not hopeful, to see if you can back up your shit for a change.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:43AM (1 child)
You don't actually have anything you can argue against, is the problem: you have dogma. There is no more changing your mind than that of a fundamentalist Muslim, and for much the same reason: you, like the Abrahamic partisan, are an idolator and barely even half-understand what it is you say you believe. I've pointed out to you several times that you're making basically the same mistake as the anti-GPL proponents (the idea that the fewest rules up front necessarily and inevitably translates into maximum freedom at all times), and that this leads you into the moral equivalent of priority-inversion bugs, but to no avail.
You seem to think "ha ha, you didn't change my mind" is the same as "i'm right and you're wrong."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:53AM
It pretty much is. Argument is how I either strengthen or change my positions. So far you've only helped to strengthen them by providing easily countered mental jetsam.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday April 09 2018, @11:29AM (8 children)
Didn't say it [government] wasn't a necessary evil. I'm libertarian not stupid.
Would you care to give a précis of what you believe to be the best system for mitigating the necessary evil of government?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:54PM (7 children)
Dictatorship moderated through assassination. It's much more likely that one person can remain above corruption than it is that the majority of any group can. If there's a significant risk of getting your head blown off for showing signs of corruption, it's even easier.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday April 09 2018, @08:49PM (6 children)
Given that you you have applied much thought to this, that's an interesting proposition.
At first sight, the number of African corrupt dictators and the state of the countries they left appears to argue against dictatorship being the best form of government for those governed.
Here's a list: Paul Biya, Robert Mugabe, Sani Abacha, Sekou Toure, Siad Barre, Omar Al-Bashir, Hissene Habre, Idi Amin, Hastings Banda, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobotu Sese Seku, Gnassingbé Eyadema, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
Admittedly, two in that list have died under suspicious circumstances, but none of the others were assassinated, however, the parlous state of their countries argues against dictatorship being better than say, the form of liberal democracy practised in many European states and the USA. Brutal dictators appear on the evidence to be pretty good at avoiding assassination.
If you look at countries with the greatest GDP per head on a purchasing power parity basis - the CIA give a convenient list [cia.gov] if anything it looks like that the successful states are lucky enough to be small financial havens or oil- and/or commodity- rich, and of the successful 'larger' countries we have Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland (which can be argued to have their own special financial reasons for being rated so high on GDP per capita on a PPP basis), leaving the USA as the top dog of genuine mixed-economy countries, with Sweden and Germany following.
I suspect that in practical terms, I would likely prefer a way of life under a chaotic/shambolic liberal multi-party democracy than a dictatorship. In any case, thanks for sharing your views.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @09:01PM (5 children)
Oh, you'd need to put more work into the system than just giving someone complete power. Having only one potentially corrupt individual to remove for change to occur is the quickest way to ensure change but it would by no means be easy to ensure the government was structured in such a way as to make it possible when it necessary. I gave a simple answer not a complete one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:07AM (4 children)
I can imagine complications arise in assuring there in only one potentially corrupt individual. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [wikipedia.org] and all that. I live in (by some measures) one of the least corrupt countries in the world, yet I see the corrosive effects of influence/networking in many places. I learned at a young age that however much one might dislike politics, you can't get away from it. Many people considerably more intelligent than me have attempted to construct/describe perfect societies, but none, as far as I know, have had a successful implementation.
While multi-party democracy is not very efficient, it is usually not actively harmful, although it is regrettably easy to find exceptions to this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 10 2018, @12:07PM (3 children)
Indeed. A bad democracy, well republic, tends to cause less harm than a bad version of anything else. A good dictatorship/monarchy/etc..., however, does more good than anything else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @09:05AM (2 children)
Being of a pessimistic temperament (although I could defend it as being realistic), I tend to look at what could go wrong and try to minimise/mitigate that rather than looking at what could go right. Idealism is for the young.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 11 2018, @10:34AM (1 child)
Same here. Thus the thought I've put into systems of government that could be set up in such a way as to begin and remain less shitty than a republic gone south and my concern with the ease of fatal power transfer when it becomes necessary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:21AM
OK - thanks for the discussion. It's a pity we don't share a local drinking establishment where I could buy you a few beers (or equivalent if you are alcohol averse).
Thank-you for the work you do in making this place available, and where conversations like this one can take place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)
Government regulation isn't evil, it is just a tool, like you. It can be used for both good and evil.
Calling it evil is like calling guns evil. They aren't, but use of both should be limited.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:01PM
I used to think that too. It doesn't hold water if you understand that any power the government has, it stole from its people though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:51PM (1 child)
If you don't want government regulation then move to Somalia. (Oh, wait, warlords == government regulation. Shit.) Otherwise, shut the fuck up and pay for the society that is supporting you. Fucking leeches like you are the reason the Fascist States of Amerika became the Fascist States of Amerika.
If you and all your fucked in the head conservatard buddies actually wanted to "make America great again" you'd all shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. So take your "gubermint is ebil" bullshit and shove it up your ass.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Monday April 09 2018, @01:36AM
I think most conservatives agree with government paying for security, just not wellfare. Your argument is invalid.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:01PM
Governments are mere proxies. They represent somebody else. They are just following orders from the people that finance and sustain them. It is truly pure capitalism. Some markets are just more open than others. And *cui bono* is universal. The lipstick cannot hide that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @10:39AM (1 child)
So is police a world's evil? They protect idiots from justice. Would have been so much easier without this stupid regulation.
It also would have been easier to dispose some high level waste in some well near your property. I'm sure you wouldn't mind. It's quite tasteless and you wouldn't feel a thing.
And finally, why don't you move to Somalia? So little regulation you can do anything you want! Must be your wet dream but somehow you prefer to enjoy all that "regulation" around you instead while mocking it as "evil".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:04PM
They're paid by involuntary taxation and not answerable to the people they police, so yes.
As for the rest, necessary isn't the same as right.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:00PM (3 children)
Maybe you are the one with the problem?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:52PM (2 children)
...really, dude? Really? You expect us to fall for that?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:01PM
Don't get your panties in such a wad.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @10:03AM
Don't get your panties in such a wad.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:00PM
We need to be clear on the role of government and this is a fair use of regulation. We already have baseline legal requirements for consumer contracts so you can sign credit agreements in confidence without having to hire a lawyer to go over the small print. Every time you click "I Agree" on a web site, it's the same thing and it extends beyond consumer protection. For example: Low level employees in businesses have to sign up for online accounts all the time, often without the executive authority to enter into contracts on the part of the company.
I honestly don't see how anybody could reasonably object to a well drafted law (or international treaty) covering data protection, liability and baseline statutory requirements for online contracts. I do though appreciate the concern governments would turn it into a power grab.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:00PM (5 children)
Speak for yourself. I drive around and pay my bills with little green pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents on them every month.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
thanks for paying for my credit card rewards!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by chromas on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:36PM
You pay for them too, in the form of higher APR, and also the price of things don't go up just for cash payers. In fact, some stores give a discount for paying cash.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:46PM
I drive around
Thanks! My Saudi oil buddies love ya, man!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @01:00AM (1 child)
> I drive around...
So you admit to using the roads, which were built by the government with tax money. Or are you driving cross country on a dirt bike??
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:50AM
1) Government demands taxes for roads.
2) $self pays taxes demanded of him
3) $self owes nothing further either morally or monetarily and may use roads as he sees fit
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)
What I would do then is just hash my password per site, and use that hash as the password. Still won't stop people from logging in once they have the plaintext password, but at least they can't use the password, or even brute force it as they won't have any clue how it was derived to begin with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @01:55PM (1 child)
What if your hash fails to meet complexity requirements because it just happens not to have any capital letters in it? Or as is quite likely, is longer than they will accept?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @08:43PM
Haven't had that happen just yet, but good point nonetheless. The way I wrote my method is does give both lowercase and uppercase letters. I think what I'll end up doing is adding a constant to the end of each password including a symbol, a number, and two letters, one in uppercase and one in lowercase.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:06PM
some jackass windows user doesn't know what a troll is. also, the op is correct. the only way it's the gov's business is when it's fraud. otherwise, don't be such a dumb ass.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday April 09 2018, @09:31AM (2 children)
You're a troll, but anyway: if I fire a gun down a busy street, but luckily don't harm anyone or anything, should I be arrested?
If you think Yes, then you think that irresponsible negligence should be punishable by law, at least some of the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @10:07AM (1 child)
As always, your question is really one about property rights.
Who owns what property, whose property rights were breached, who is responsible for breaching those rights, and what should the compensation be?
The reason you are asking that question with a straight face is because your world is poorly defined, and your primitive world view doesn't allow you to recognize that fact.
Either You can have rules, or you can have rulers, but you cannot have both.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @10:42AM
Property rights are regulation. Next!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday April 08 2018, @02:30PM
At the same time using cheap drooling outsourced Indian labor, half assed pointy haired management, and CEOs squandering the budget to buy more yachts becomes criminally negligent.
In other words, never.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @02:44PM (3 children)
> At T-Mobile Austria, they explain that of course they store the password in plaintext, but they have so good security so it's nothing to worry about.
Wait...
"All the passwords were stolen. They were in plaintext, but don't worry, our security is good."
What the hell? Was that explanation made pre-breach, in which case it's just stupid, or after the breach, in which case whoever gave it should be locked up in a sanatorium and not out here with non-crazy people?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Knowledge Troll on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:09PM (2 children)
T-Mobile wasn't breached - at least not that they are reporting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:21PM
Ah, right, the breach was in Finland, and the statement was from T-Mobile Austria. My bad. That means that the "explanation" is just terminally stupid, not clinically insane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:00PM
Someone found and PoC'd an XSS on their website on Friday night. It was also reported they are running comically old versions of the Linux kernel, PHP, and Apache. I suspect their database is already floating around on at least one invite only "dark" web forum. I'm thinking some time late next week it'll hit the mainstream network news.
In other news, if you're still sharing passwords between websites, now would be a very good time to rethink that practice while you're changing your passwords again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @02:58PM (56 children)
Uh what are these accounts used for? Doesn't seem like such a big deal compared to what US banks have been doing for decades if not longer.
https://splinternews.com/someone-can-empty-your-bank-account-with-the-informatio-1793857226 [splinternews.com]
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7914159/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/easy-check-fraud-technique-draws-scrutiny/ [nbcnews.com]
And despite such crappy security the world still kinda works right? That should give you some perspective on how important security really is. I've been in the IT security line before, security is important. But the fact is you can't really outrun the bear (if a skilled hacker targets you, you're pwned) but for most cases you just need to outrun other people (so the normal dumb automated attacks don't work on you). And if stuff happens, you often need some CYA to prove you were not responsible because you were responsible enough. BUT in the greater scheme of things it's not that important (IT security consultants aren't gonna tell you that of course ;) ).
All of us have seen many password and credit card breaches over the years right? How big has the _real_ impact been? Not that much. The fact is most people in the world aren't busy trying to steal your stuff. It's like leaving your car keys in your car. That's silly but in most cases you could be gone the whole day and your car would still be where it was.
What's more important is to make sure you have backups that work.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:10PM (53 children)
and as long as the outcome of the breach is cheaper than what you pay for security, "What, me worry?"
The company doesn't REEEALLLLY care if your cc info, personal info, password etc is taken so long as they can make it all balance to the positive on the balance sheet.
As SOON as that balance sheet goes into the negative and better security will put it (possibly) into the positive, THEN companies will start caring about security.
Companies want to see profit and don't give a tinker's damn about your info. Companies need to see REAL penalties that make security become important (ie: lack of real security is making us lose money) before security will become important.
Make breaches expensive, then companies will listen.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:21PM (43 children)
Actually what would change things is if CxOs start going to prison for their crimes. Fines aren't really a big problem when in most/all cases it's just the Government taking their cut of the profits.
Why punish hundreds or thousands of people when you could just punish the people responsible? If you really want to penalize bad behavior it's inefficient and ineffective to kill the company with huge fines and hurt lots of employees. Just start throwing the people responsible into prison and then you'd see changes.
Even many psychopath CEOs would change their practices in such cases. Especially when most of them can't achieve their objectives as easily from prison. In contrast fining the company might not really prevent them from achieving what they want.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @03:33PM (41 children)
Better idea: make them pay personally, and then when they inevitably go bankrupt, THEN send them to jail, so they get out penniless and have to experience life as working-poor.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:06PM
I LIKE EVEN MORE! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:49PM (36 children)
You'd immediately have nobody on the entire planet willing to take a CxO job at all. Things like this are why thinking with your feelz is flat retarded.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:53PM (16 children)
Sounds like the market shifting :) We don't have too many buggy whip manufacturers either. Cry harder.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @08:25PM (15 children)
Call it what you like, someone has to sit in the big chair and make the hard decisions. And they're going to want paid and paid well for it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:36PM (1 child)
Incorrect. There does not have to be a Big Chair. It is possible for an organization to operate without singling out one person to be The Leader. Airlines have learned that "the captain is God" is not as effective as giving the other pilots more input and discretion. Too many times, a crash happened because there was more going on than any one person, no matter how talented, could handle.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:56AM
Possible != desirable. Get more than three people together and they won't even be able to decide what pizza toppings to get in a timely manner. One person is best where the job can be done by one person.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @01:47AM (11 children)
And you deny this needs to come with the responsibility for one's (CxO) actions, responsibility including jail time for malfeasance and/or gross negligence?
Seriously, dude? How this plays together with your declared libertarian streak?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:53AM (10 children)
It has nothing to do with liberty is how. The board of directors and the CEO are the only ones involved in his employment contract. If the board wants to write shitty contracts without penalties for shitty performance, that's their business. If I were their shareholder I'd damned sure make it my business as well but it's nobody else's.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @02:22AM (9 children)
And if your are their customer? Or a person affected by their "dump of externalities"?
Like polluting your drinking water [onearth.org] to keep up with the Chinese appetite for spam or delivering it by means that make it toxic [wikipedia.org]?
Or even lobbying and making a profit from poisoning you [nih.gov]?
Really, you don't see anything wrong with the CxO's business decisions in those cases?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:57AM (8 children)
Then you sue. Or press charges. Or both.
Illegal acts are illegal acts. Ordering illegal acts is also a prosecutable crime, regardless of the letters by your name (unless those letters spell "Sen.", "Rep.", or the like). If you don't like that some things are not currently illegal, there is a proper process already in place to deal with that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @04:08AM (7 children)
Apart from "Good luck with that", how often you've seen any CxO made to pay over negligent or criminal behavior?
Flint water crisis [wikipedia.org]:
Pig farm pollution cases [chicagotribune.com] - only one example of suits-leading-nowhere, you can find heaps of others:
Lead plumbing lobby? Never received even a slap-on-the-wrist, they arranged the laws and regulations for ages [nih.gov]
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @04:31AM (6 children)
That's an "enforce the laws on the books" problem not a "we need new laws" problem.
Stop voting for lizards just because the wrong lizard might win if you don't. If you want honest, or something that at least looks like honesty in dim lighting, representatives, don't vote for dishonest ones.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @04:50AM (5 children)
Good advises.
When do you (all) start?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @05:04AM (4 children)
Reforming the system is not one of my goals. I don't believe it can be achieved. I'm working the "burn it down and start over" angle.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @05:09AM (3 children)
While angling for fish? Seems quite a subtle way of being subversive
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @06:26AM (2 children)
Heh, being able to hunt and fish could very well become valuable skills in the not too distant future. Plus, fishing relaxes me and I don't see any need to get all stressed out just because a shitty government is in need of toppling. If the US government can manage it, anyone should be able to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 09 2018, @06:33AM (1 child)
Or useless skills due to the extinction of any life on the hunting/fishing grounds by the local hog farming baron.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @07:00AM
Sounds good to me. I know how to hunt hogs and there's no such thing as too much bacon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @02:09AM
So why don't they make the hard decisions ? Instead they make the profit, reap the rewards and deny the responsibility all in one breath.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 5, Touché) by HiThere on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:07PM (1 child)
Actually, with a reasonable interpretation of "due diligence" you'd probably have lots of people willing to be CxOs. Just not quite the same selection, and that would probably be a benefit.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @08:27PM
I want you to consider how many lawsuits get found for the complainant in this nation every year on the grounds of negligence. People aren't that negligent but hindsight is always 20/20.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:50PM
Sounds good to me! None of those fuck stains are worth what they're paid anyway.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:50PM (1 child)
You think with your feelz all the fucking time, otherwise you'd be capable of walking back when people prove you wrong. But those feelz have a death grip on your brain, so taxes == theft, etc. Here's a stone bub, try not to break your own house.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @08:29PM
Prove me wrong on something and we'll know.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:02PM (13 children)
So you are not really a Libertarian, you are an anarchist.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:17PM
What gives you that idea?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:14AM (11 children)
He doesn't have a coherent political position. What he does have is bits of barstool wisdom like "All taxation is theft." That, and an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore that leaves him with much too high an opinion of himself and his own worldview.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:21AM (10 children)
s/All/Involuntary/
If you're going to speak for me, do so correctly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:40AM (9 children)
This is the first time I've ever heard or seen you qualify that. In the past it's always been a flat-out condemnation of the entire idea of taxation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @03:17AM (8 children)
Fair enough. Like everyone else, I'm not always utterly precise. I have zero issue with voluntary taxation except possibly minor debates on specific rates. My issue is with the use of force to compel anyone to give you money. Done by anyone but a government, that is a crime. Why is it suddenly moral if a government does it? "Government" is not a magic word that makes anything they feel like doing morally correct.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @04:56AM (7 children)
You *sure* you're not Mr. Vim? You keep saying basically the same stuff he does.
We've been over this road before, and as I recall, last time I brought up the idea of a social contract, you more or less said "I didn't sign any contract" without actually putting it in those words. You have, at least, this time hit on the essential difference between legal and moral, but where do you get your morals from and what grounds them, ontologically speaking?
Last time, your answer to that was basically "the natural state of humanity is liberty." Well, perhaps so, but the natural state of humanity is ALSO sleeping up a tree, prey to any horrible murdercat or awful ague that comes along, with a good chance of being dead in your 30s even if you survive past age 5, which you have barely even odds of doing. Taxes may not be natural, but "natural" doesn't define good or evil.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @05:46AM (6 children)
Well, I do code entirely in vim but, no, I never post here under a pseudonym of any kind. My nick here is what I've answered to since I was sixteen unless I was doing something official paperworky.
Where do you get morals from? I had a couple paragraphs typed up citing Judeo-Christian philosophy, Wicca, Buddhism, and other stuff in answer but really, they come from my bathroom mirror. If I can look in it and be happy with what looks back is what my morals are grounded upon. Basing your morality on anything but an extremely thorough self inspection is the act of a coward. Passing the buck to the writings of dead men is a cop out. By all means take wisdom anywhere you can find it but the responsibility for your thoughts, speech, and actions is entirely your own.
The point of "the natural state of humanity is liberty" isn't that natural is good. It was that rights do not need to originate from anywhere. They're what was always there before you started allowing them to be taken away. It's like asking where darkness originates from. It doesn't, it's the absence of light.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:50PM (5 children)
How utterly solipsistic...or maybe you're just not used to digging this far down.
Okay, so you say your morals come only from you and whether or not you're happy with "what you see in the mirror." But what standard are you using to judge that? WHY would doing X or Y or Z make you unhappy? THAT'S what we mean by the grounding of morals. I don't think it's as self-centered as you think, and it's certainly not as much about simple introspection in a vacuum.
And, sorry, but *all* of these concepts need derived from somewhere. That is foundationalism for you. These "rights" need to be built on something. What is it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @04:02PM (4 children)
You seem to feel the need for something other than yourself to base your own morality on. I don't. Basing your morality on something external is just an attempt at pushing a responsibility that is solely your own upon something beyond your control so that you don't have to take responsibility for yourself. Even were there an all knowing/powerful creator who had decreed a set of moral principles in fire across the sky, it would not obviate your personal responsibility to decide right and wrong for yourself.
No, they are not. You really can't understand that rights are not something given to you but something you innately possess, can you? You need an authority to point to and say "here is where rights and morality come from". Why? Authority is what needs to be derived, rights simply exist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @07:25PM (3 children)
You don't do logic so well, do you?
I am not saying "there needs to be an authority." YOU are. I am saying "show me the ontological grounding of these rights you say we have." It's not enough to stamp your feet and pout and say "They just ARE, so THERE! *prrrrbtphsth*" For once in your goddamn life, stop relying on the stereotypes you THINK apply to other people and use your head.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @09:26PM (2 children)
Sigh. You keep thinking of rights as positively existing entities. They are not any more than darkness or vacuum is. They are an abstract name for the the absence of someone else's will conflicting with your own. They need no grounding because they are not an affirmative thing.
Any conscious being placed alone in an area has complete liberty (all possible rights) until another entity comes along and wishes their thoughts, speech, actions, etc... to be limited for some reason. Rights are defined when some measure of liberty is addressed that a desire to curtail it exists for. Then and only then can they potentially become the arbitrarily defined, limited subset of complete liberty that we call a "right" to be protected or surrendered.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:24AM (1 child)
Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere :) THAT is their ontological grounding. They are an epiphenomenon of who and what we as humans are, as well as our environment.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:11AM
More a product of interaction with other sentient beings, I'd say. I mean you currently have the right to spontaneously turn bright purple if you so desire. It's just not something that's likely to come up so the right itself isn't going to have its boundaries precisely defined. Or it's like "how many possible arcs are there in a circle?". There are an infinite number that are going to undefined in any given circle simply because they're not currently relevant to anything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:00PM
Not even jail. Put him on work release. Bring back chain gangs and medical experiments on prisoners, keep them alive forever and put a web cam in their cell. Bathe them in 50F water from the fire hose.
But seriously, we do need to put these people into the poorhouse and disperse their assets and estates. That should be sufficient. Let them find their own room and board for a while.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Monday April 09 2018, @09:53AM (1 child)
Save the taxpayers the expense of jail, just take away their assets and force them to live on minimum wage for ten years or so...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:25AM
I like your thinking and wish to subscribe to your RSS feed :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:06PM
I LIKE!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:58PM (8 children)
As I mentioned 2 days ago [soylentnews.org], the proof of how little harm security breaches really do to major companies is that Equifax's stock just closed right about where it was a year ago, despite losing basically every adult American's entire identity information in between.
New slogan: "We Don't Care. We Don't Have To. We're The Big Data Company."
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday April 08 2018, @10:53PM (6 children)
Exactly why they need to be made to care: hit them in the balance sheet and in their own personal wallets.
Make it so rough, it's more worth their while to do things correctly AND morally right than it is to fuck people and get away with it.
TOO many executives are getting mere slaps on the wrists. It needs to HURT!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:01PM (5 children)
That's where their employment contracts come in. Tie their personal earnings to the company's profits starting from zero on both. This isn't a problem with the CEOs or the law, it's a problem with the boards of directors who do the hiring not being worth a shit at their jobs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 08 2018, @11:49PM (4 children)
That won't do the job. Using Equifax as the example again, here are their quarterly earnings per share over the last couple of years:
2016 Q1: $0.85
Q2: $1.08
Q3: $1.09
Q4: $1.01
2017 Q1: $1.26
Q2: $1.36
Q3: $0.79 (breach made public)
Q4: $1.42 (3 months later)
See that great pain in their profits? Me neither.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 09 2018, @01:00AM
Equifax has about $3b a year revenue, $120m fines per data breach (so that's how many trillion for losing an entire country?) should impact those profit figures somewhat.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:59AM (2 children)
I'm talking managing the company well or not from a profit perspective. Ordering illegal acts is itself illegal and needs no further legislation. Ordering astoundingly foolish acts is not and should never be.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 09 2018, @02:36PM (1 child)
And what Equifax did is not criminal, just astoundingly foolish and possibly a tort.
And the point of the argument is that Equifax did a lot of damage to a lot of people, knowingly even by hiding the breach for months, and yet is totally fine as a business, thus demonstrating that civil penalties and company profits are insufficient to motivate companies to behave differently.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @04:13PM
Then your obligation is to change the laws if you want to claim to be a civilized being. Illegal and immoral actions on your part cannot be justified by legal but immoral actions on their part if that's a mantle you wish to wear.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @02:15AM
Isn't Equifax the body behind the company that charges to fix the problem that Equifax created ? Seems like a self supporting industry that makes money off every angle. They collect the info, hire the hackers to heist the info and profit from the sale, then profit again when the credit monitoring service is engaged. Pure marketing genius...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns [youtube.com]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:47PM (1 child)
What Kashmir did was a crime, even though the security of the MICR line is nil. That could get her deported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @05:56AM
And so? Same for illegal abuse of passwords/accounts.
The issue is the US banks are/were using ZERO FACTOR authentication/authorization that's exposed to the public on a regular basis and even that's not considered criminally negligent but standard practice. Whereas at least in this Finland case, passwords are used (1-Factor) and though it's plaintext it's not regularly exposed to the public.
So if the US banks aren't going down for criminal negligence for being so insecure and sloppy for such important stuff why should storing passwords in plaintext but not in public for not as important stuff be considered criminally negligent?