SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-get-a-lawsuit-and-you-get-a-lawsuit...everyone-gets-a-lawsuit dept.
The law firm Tycko & Zavareei LLP filed the lawsuit on Thursday, arguing that GitHub and Capital One demonstrated negligence in their response to the breach.
The firm filed the class-action complaint on behalf of those impacted by the breach, alleging that both companies failed to protect customer data.
Personal information for tens of millions of customers was exposed after a firewall misconfiguration in an Amazon cloud storage service used by Capital One was exploited.
[...] “As a result of GitHub’s failure to monitor, remove, or otherwise recognize and act upon obviously-hacked data that was displayed, disclosed, and used on or by GitHub and its website, the Personal Information sat on GitHub.com for nearly three months,” the law firm alleged in its complaint against GitHub and Capital One.
The firm also alleged that computer logs “demonstrate that Capital One knew or should have known” about the data breach when it occurred in March, and criticized Capital One for not taking action to respond to the breach until last month.
Previously:
Capital One Target of Massive Data Breach
The Technical Side of the Capital One AWS Security Breach
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @05:57PM (3 children)
And this law firm has standing how?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:19PM (2 children)
All they need to do is find one name on the list that was downloaded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:41PM (1 child)
That would give them standing against Capital None, but not against Github.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @11:26PM
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:16PM (3 children)
All this erratic incident looks very suspicious since the beginning. Paige Adele Thompson, a transgender, looks more like a heavy drug abuser, a white horse puppet. And what is Zion Preparatory Academy?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)
Why oh why must the crazies come here. We have enough ignorance, don't need the batshit eating wackos too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:51PM
Ignorance is Strength.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 05 2019, @02:28PM
But . . . it's All Natural !!!
If a minstrel has musical instruments attached to his bicycle, can it be called a minstrel cycle?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:21PM (10 children)
This so called 'breach' would not be that bad if banks and others wouldn't give such easy credit. Having my SS#, birthdate, address and even income would be significantly less valuable, if banks didn't give other people money just because they know that info.
There needs to be an easy way to hold banks accountable for giving credit to the wrong person; then all these breaches would be non-news.
The first thing I would do is force banks to NOT use SS# as an identifier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:41PM
i agree. these pieces of shit leak the data and then other scumbag banksters use it illegally to make more money. they are criminals more than the "evil hackers" who just picked up what these negligent fucks left laying around most of the time. if legislators weren't such criminals they would hold they buddies in the banks accountable. instead, they protect them against us.
also, if idiots let congress pass laws that say web services have to micromanage what other people post then the web is fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:53PM (5 children)
what they are doing is worse, they are using SS# as a password - sue banks for libel next time they say you took money that you know you didn't - don't allow them to shift blame and expense with their made up 'identity theft' claim
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:47PM (4 children)
While anyone else who publicly says that you borrowed money and aren't paying it back, when you didn't actually borrow any, would be on the hook for a libel lawsuit, dollars to donuts banks and reporting agencies are likely exempted "due to specific regulation".
The system is entrenched and too important to risk disruption of business as usual. You the individual aren't powerful and organized to get the government to stand up for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @03:07AM (3 children)
Namely the specific regulation in the Fair Credit Reporting Act: "no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, …with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m of this title, or based on information disclosed by a user of a consumer report to or for a consumer against whom the user has taken adverse action, based in whole or in part on the report except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer."
In other words: "Fuck you."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @01:36PM (2 children)
Thanks - it looks like traditional double-speak - 'Fair Credit Reporting' is not fair in my opinion
Sue anyway and take it to the Supreme Court - with go-fund-me help from the rest of the public who has been affected
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @03:39PM (1 child)
And what do you think is going to happen after spending the $500k it takes to get to that level? The supreme court turning over the apple cart of half the economy because it would be just?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:16PM
They would have to - we've had large changes before - this one is needed
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)
Easy. Make it so they can neither attempt collection nor report adverse information unless and until they can prove it's actually you. Make it clear that someone giving them publicly available information (which includes SSN at this point) does NOT constitute proof of anything. Once that's done, it's up to them to decide how much risk they want to take.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @05:35PM
of course it's easy, but that assumes that legislators aren't criminals too.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday August 04 2019, @10:57PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:43PM (3 children)
They won't be happy until every web site has an army of censors sitting around checking for everything some geezer parasite thinks is bad practice or forbidden speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @09:43PM (1 child)
Oh yes, corporations should never be criticized. Obviously they must be able to whatever they feel like doing with anything and everything you submit to them, including but certainly not limited to personal details on health, finances, sexual preferences and mental health...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @05:44PM
i don't know how you get "corps shouldn't be criticized" from my statement. I don't need some condescending parasite making my decisions for me. Freedom means people have to decide for themselves what info to hand over to who. The legitimate job of the government(in the US), assuming it exists, is to prosecute fraud. If companies are lying about how they use that data then bury them under the jail.
If people love being victimized so much that they hand over all their data to be used by slavebook's/scroogle's AI then that is their fucking problem, and no government slug is going to make anything better.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday August 05 2019, @02:32AM
The actions of lawyers end up incentivizing people to go to ridiculous lengths in persuit of ass-covering, but I wouldn't call it their goal. I mean they are just exploiting the current system, not trying to create a different one. After all, if everything became censored and locked-down and idiot-proofed, what would happen to the litigation business?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @06:55PM (2 children)
In an LLP, each partner is not responsible or liable for another partner's misconduct or negligence.
Any LLP or LLC is just fancy lawyer words for "we'll fuck as much money out of you as possible but not be responsible for our actions if we're crooked".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @09:19PM
It’s also handy to protect yourself from sheister lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @09:52PM
That isn't entirely accurate. You are never directly liable for another partner's or owner's misconduct or negligence. Instead, you are liable if said negligence can be imputed onto the business entity, which is not guaranteed.
What LLPs and LLCs do is limit your liability for the actions of the business entity to your ownership interest. Said ownership interest can be as large or small as the equity indicates.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:19PM (1 child)
Getting at Microsoft through the back door
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @09:46PM
It's a long tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Orifice [wikipedia.org]