Congresswoman Destroys Equifax CEO Mark Begor About Privacy (fastcompany.com) 195
An anonymous reader shares a report: In a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) asked whether Equifax CEO Mark Begor would be willing to share his address, birth date, and Social Security number publicly at the hearing. Begor declined, citing the risk of "identity theft," letting Porter criticize Equifax's legal response to the 2017 security breach that exposed almost 150 million people's data of that sort to an unknown intruder. The company had unsuccessfully asked a judge presiding over a class-action suit over the breach to dismiss it, saying the plaintiffs hadn't "sufficiently alleged injury and proximate causation" to bring suit, as Yahoo Finance reported late last month.
This guy should be in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just implement the GDPR in the US. But I'm sure by the time it is adopted, it will be crippled by loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, sure. The companies keep too much information and therefore make it too valuable, right?
The problem is now it is easy enough for a hacker to crack multiple (softer) targets and assemble much of the same data. Perfect security is impossible, and the problem gets worse the further down you go. Once you talk about employee exfiltration of data they had the right to access, things become darn near impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect security is impossible, and the problem gets worse the further down you go
This limitation is much more often used as an excuse than it is reached. If someone says, "Perfect security is impossible" you better check for SQL injection attacks, because they most likely have them. Better make sure their passwords are encrypted, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a breach and handling of it should constitute penalty of bringing the company down magnitude - it has to be felt not only by C[ET.]Os but by shareholders as well, who have to start putting attention on how the company is managed not only how much dividend they get - otherwise all will remain business as usual.
Class action lawsuit is justified, as the genie is out and there's no way to put him back, unless 150mln people changed their SSNs they will remain susceptible to identity theft for the rest of t
I wouldn't want jail time (Score:2)
Large breaches should be treated as negligence cases. That'll help. But a better and real long term solution is to force companies to build systems that prevent breaches from causing problems. Somebody shouldn't be able to get a mortgage with a SS# and a smile. It doesn't help that such loans are often guaranteed, often sold by salesmen on co
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a financial penalty IS to force them to prioritize correctly. The costs of investing in security will be less than the cost of a breach. That incentive is exactly backwards at present.
If this is willfully ignored, then the jail time option needs to become available.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The jail time would need to be an option for willful negligence where profit was prioritized over actual data security...
Here, let me point out your first mistake; define "actual data security" for me.
And when I say define, I'm specifically talking in a highly technical and legally binding way that is actually worth a shit in a courtroom.
If you can't manage to do that, then you might as well stop bitching about the problem of prison time, because you can't even define the fucking problem to correct.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is all risk management-- this outcome has such-and-such probability and will cost $X to address with a n% chance of eliminating the threat. Nobody can commit infinite sums to data security; it is unreasonable for them to commit even their annual revenue to the cause.
So, what is the alternative? Don't keep anything useful?
Re: (Score:2)
But it is all risk management-- this outcome has such-and-such probability and will cost $X to address with a n% chance of eliminating the threat. Nobody can commit infinite sums to data security; it is unreasonable for them to commit even their annual revenue to the cause.
So, what is the alternative? Don't keep anything useful?
That's classic reductio ad absurdum. If you can't define the risk because you don't know enough about the area, you by definition aren't qualified for the CTO/CIO of an organization like Equifax. And the board, whose job it is to know this, should be raising questions about a music major in charge of their InfoSec. I understand there is a middle ground and a balance to be struck, but in this case every level failed so spectacularly in fundamental ways that they should have known about that if there is no
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone climbs onto a piece of heavy machinery like a crane and proceeds to kill someone - they are still prosecuted. If someone picks up a handgun and shoots someone, they are still prosecuted even if they have no training or knowledge on how to use the handgun.
Ignorance is NOT a defense. Especially in a situation where someone is put into a position of power. You could even extend the prosecution to the people who PUT the CTO in the position, because they knew he / she didn't have the experience or knowledge necessary to execute the job.
Re: (Score:2)
100% Nope.
If someone climbs onto a piece of heavy machinery like a crane and proceeds to kill someone - they are still prosecuted. If someone picks up a handgun and shoots someone, they are still prosecuted even if they have no training or knowledge on how to use the handgun.
Ignorance is NOT a defense. Especially in a situation where someone is put into a position of power. You could even extend the prosecution to the people who PUT the CTO in the position, because they knew he / she didn't have the experience or knowledge necessary to execute the job.
I presume you mean "accidentally kills someone".
That is the difference between murder and manslaughter in the UK. A murder is an intentional death, manslaughter is unintentional death with manslaughter being the lesser penalty (the US makes a similar distinction but I don't know the terms, feel free to look them up yourselves). A further distinction is between deliberate and accidental manslaughter, accidental being the lesser penalty. This is why being ignorant of the danger is a legal defence. Any half
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The CTO of a company which keeps a database of individual's private information "Should have known" they were incompetent to fulfill that job with their present knowledge. They "should have known" they needed to hire people competent in the field of security to ensure that data, which contain data harmful to individuals if released, was secure.
The fact that they did nothing makes them culpable for the harm that resulted.
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is willfully ignored, then the jail time option needs to become available.
It was not willfully ignored. The CTO was a music major. All the evidence points to oblivious incompetence. There was no decision to be evil and greedy by trading security for profit, because they were too dumb to realize such a tradeoff even existed.
If we are going to incarcerate people for incompetence, we are going to need a lot more prisons.
Not really sure that is an excuse here though. This is a company that literally makes billions off of holding people's information in IT infrastructure. Don't you think that it should be obvious that they need to have a CTO and CIO at the very least educated on what the hell they are doing/in charge of? If they are not then that in and of itself constitutes willful negligence on the part of the board and those responsible for hiring them. If I hire an incompetent engineer to work on my team, knowing they do not have the background necessary to do the job, don't you think those above me are going to hold me accountable?
Why make excuses for company's failings at the most basic levels. It would be different if they had a state of the art system and it was still breached. Hell, it would be different if they were in the process of bringing an ancient system up to date, but they were running on horribly outdated systems and those in charge of making the decision to upgrade didn't even possess enough knowledge to know they should upgrade? That isn't an excuse, it is just being irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yea that was generally my point, although one could argue if the CTO knew he was not qualified to hold that position he shouldn't have taken it. If the CTO was in that position without at least a reasonable amount of experience and qualification then he could be in the wrong too. Hubris does not excuse someone from an action that harms or could potentially harm millions of people.
I would be in the wrong to take a CFO position if offered because I don't have anywhere near the experience in financials
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to incarcerate people for incompetence, we are going to need a lot more prisons.
Most incompetent people do not impact 150 million customers. The punishment should fit the crime, including in scale.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to incarcerate people for incompetence, we are going to need a lot more prisons.
We do incarcerate people for incompetence. It's called negligent homicide.
Re: (Score:2)
Just reply to a cop "I didn't know speeding was against the law on this road" when he pulls you over and see what that gets you. Say that to the judge when you contest the ticket.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense is common knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The CTO was a music major
The Chief Security Officer at the time of the breach was a music major, not the CTO.
Which is also incidentally entirely fucking irrelevant. E.g. Brian Honan has a Diploma in Industrial Relations, and good luck hiring someone more qualified than him.
Re: (Score:2)
Lifetime in prison as the entire adult population save for Amish has been harmed for life.
They should be de-registered as a corporation and forced to liquidate all activities.
Re: (Score:2)
>Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it.
Shouldn't be hard - just make sure the company has lots of checks and balances to ensure nobody, at any level, can get away with causing the company to engage in illegal or high-risk activities.
Would that hurt profits? Almost certainly. But it would also go a long way to making company's behave in socially responsible ways, rather than as psychopathic profit-seekers. Which is something society, and it's supposed
Re: (Score:2)
"Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it."
If I could made CXO money for a couple of years, I'd probably be ok with a couple of years of white collar rich white guy jail time. You know, they have conjugal visits there? I be many of you haven't had a conjugal visit in six months.
Re: (Score:2)
"Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it."
Or, it would only attract those with ethics. If such an action scares you about being in management, perhaps you shouldn't be in management. Perhaps tougher sanctions would prevent those with compromised ethics from trying to get into positions of management. Perhaps that's a good thing...perhaps that even what we want.
Re: (Score:2)
"Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it."
Or, it would only attract those with ethics.
Suppose you have this "ethics". Suppose you know all there is to know about computer security on your first day of the job, which let's say was Jan 1, 2014. You make sure everything is done the best way possible as of Jan 2, 2014. You're "ethical" and "competent".
And then on Apr. 1, 2014, the Heartbleed bug is announced. Thirty minutes later your corporate database is hacked. One hundred fifty million people's identifying information is stolen. You go to jail. (That is the working theory here, "threat of
Re: (Score:2)
This validates my opinion of corporate behavior in the US: if you are a CxO of a major corporation you are already a criminal.
In general large scale corporate capitalism is a criminal enterprise.
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, they could obey the laws like the rest of the country? I don't get how that is an excuse at all. Unless a person is planning to commit illegal acts they really shouldn't have an issue with some laws that mean they need to protect people. The only argument is they just don't like the risk, but we all have to take on risk proportionate to the reward and when you are making fuck-you levels of money it should be understood to have greater risk.
The argument, "ok, define it then" doesn't really hold up well either. We define what negligence and best efforts are all the time, why exactly do you think computer security can't have the same standards applied? Just because a person fails to define something on the spot, by themselves, without a law degree, doesn't mean we simply can't do it or shouldn't do it. Civil engineers get sued all the friggin time. When they are criminally negligent the charge(s) become criminal and not just civil. The person ultimately responsible for making the decisions should be held accountable
People still have this idea that software/IT is somehow so magically different from everything else in the eyes of the law, but it can be regulated in basically the same ways. Bring in some experts, talk to some damn congressional representatives, do the due diligence, and stop letting these ass holes skate the responsibility. Literally the only people that benefit from no liability are the C-suite execs. If you think it is acceptable to just let people's lives get destroyed to make a couple extra bucks then you need to examine your own morality and ethics.
Re:This guy should be in prison (Score:4)
My country can and does put CEOs in jail and we seem to have little trouble filling the positions.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you vastly underrate the greed of most people. For the kind of money most C level executives make there would be no problem filling positions at most businesses. They would either work harder to protect people's data or be sneakier in hiding data loss.
Actually in real life the threat of jail time for bad actors in a field doesn't typically deter practitioners. Every medical doctor or engineer knows that should they cause a death through malfeasance that real jail time is on the table. That doesn't s
Re: (Score:2)
Ever hear of Sarbanes-Oxley?
Or: Knew or Should Have Known?
Now you see that in corporations, from the Cxx's on down, they are very careful that financial information they release is truthful.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the threat of jail time is held over any CxO position, good fucking luck filling it.
Multiple positions at Financial Services companies (e.g. banks) in the UK incur the threat of jail time, including CxO positions and less senior ones.
There's plenty of competition for those roles.
Re: (Score:2)
But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.
They also won't do it because there is no evidence that he did anything wrong.
The breach occurred in March 2017.
He became CEO in April 2018.
Re: (Score:3)
This guy should be in prison. But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.
So, you're in favor of jailing innocent people?
After all, Mark Begor was not the CEO when the leak happened (that would be Richard Smith), nor was he even the CEO who handled most of the aftermath (that would be Paulino do Rego Barros Jr.). Mr. Begor only started as CEO in April 2018, nearly a year after the leaks were first discovered. He may be as slimy as the rest for all I know, but he wasn't a part of what happened back then. So far as I can see, he's simply the guy trying to clean up the mess.
It's fin
Re: (Score:2)
like, theres 3rd world countries where identity theft is harder to commit than in usa.
Umm ... all of them. All the other first world countries too. Identity theft is mostly an America-only issue.
Only in America do we base our financial security on a number that is expected to be both secret and widely shared.
The solution is not "throw more people in prison". Instead, we should ban the use of SSNs for authentication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So when you call a mobile phone service provider, or a bank, in China and ask them to help you log in to online service portal or otherwise make some change, how do they authenticate you?
They authenticate with a mobile phone and WeChat or AliPay PIN. Identity theft is essentially nonexistent in China.
Re: (Score:2)
and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?
Re:and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well in theory he adds to the debate over privacy laws and corporate punishment for breeches, and also the positive publicity and public sentiment might encourage others to join her in supporting laws that address the issue.
Obviously the system is far from perfect, but it's perhaps not a total waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's to be seen.
I'm still celebrating a congressperson doing something for their constituents for a change. Could we just have that? It's not like those moments are so numerous that we shouldn't cherish them.
Re: (Score:2)
But what exactly did she do?
Has a law been changed? A fine been issued? A court case been filed? Has the company or the executive been in any way punished? Or just mildely inconvenience for two minutes?
Re: (Score:3)
So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?
Probably not.
It's kind of like the Senate hearing yesterday with all the heads of the pharmas getting grilled about drug prices.
A republican senator was annoyed by the answer from the Pfizer guy about how they manipulate patents to keep price gouging going.
The senator made a comment about how, since he was on the judiciary committee they would "take a look at that".
Sure you will.
How much does pharma contribute to their campaigns?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice link there.
So the answer is "not enough". They rank somewhere in the middle and he just may have dropped them a hint to move up into a more... preferable... position.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue the headline is the effect. Hopefully it will be another notch in the idea that this data is too powerful for people to hold, or that it is worthless. Either outcome works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first headline of this type, and not the first case of someone protecting his own privacy while playing it fast and loose with others.
So again, what it actually accomplishes?
It's the same question I ask about political comedians and satire. I enjoy it a lot, but I always wonder if it doesn't provide a harmless outlet for dissatisfaction that should better make efforts towards change their outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?
Well now, he did let us know - via the attempt to persuade a judge to dismiss a court class-action suit - that such personal information of millions of people exposed was "no harm done"; but if the same information about him was exposed, it would be simply devastating! Glad he cleared that up, and all thanks to our "useless" open congressional investigations process. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
I got that, but
a) CEOs of this type are often psychopaths. They have no problem with this kind of conflicting information. (I don't mean that as an insult, it's a proven fact that some personality types are more common among top-level managers than in the general population)
b) what exactly does this change except confirming a suspicion? That's the point. Will it have any effect on the court case? Will it have any effect on stock prices? Revenue? Anything?
Re:Crabkeys (Score:4, Informative)
You're claiming a user with a 3-digit uid is a Russian troll? Idiot.
Re: Crabkeys (Score:2, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, the long game plays you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming a user with a 3-digit uid is a Russian troll? Idiot.
No NO, you don't GET it, do you? They've been planning this for a long, LONG time, and now it's almost come to fruition!
/. . Well good, maybe they can fix the unicode problem as well. *I'D* vote for that, even if I didn't!
That, or remember: they're hackers, maybe they've hacked into
Re: (Score:2)
Someone pays for a 3-digit /. ID? What's the going rate?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not. We started having "first post" jokes back when I joined. Soviet Russia came later. Maybe they existed before, but the time when they became popular was a couple years later.
Re: (Score:2)
Crab Keys is in America, actually.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't destroy anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? It was a spectacle of epic proportions. She was doing nothing more than grandstanding.
There is a big difference between making persuasive, coherent arguments in favor of change, and acting like a petulant child and throwing a screaming temper tantrum at someone.
Everyone already knows that Equifax screwed up. We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know. If you want change you need FEWER people like her and MORE people who are willing to actually discuss the issue rat
Re:She didn't destroy anything (Score:4)
"Destroys"
Slashdot editors are 7th graders. It's a wonder they aren't posting shit in Text Speak.
Re: (Score:2)
"Destroys"
Slashdot editors are 7th graders. It's a wonder they aren't posting shit in Text Speak.
Should have been pwns, obviously!
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to click-bait YouTube politics, where every other video is "X DESTROYS feminazi sjw" but if you actually have the misfortune to watch it that's almost never the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Social Media will be the downfall of the West.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they screwed up. But so far I have not seen a single congresscritter to do more than shrug and click their tongue while rolling their eyes. Maybe finally we'll see some kind of movement.
Please let me hope.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there's any sensible alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
The context was a question about actual harm. Giving out your private information raises the potential for actual harm. A breach likewise does not mean actual harm. Until you can point to specific people who suffered identity theft, there is no actual harm.
And sadly after so many breaches it gets harder to say that it was this particular breach that caused injury.
The difference between potential and actual is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:She didn't destroy anything (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know.
Actually, we do. Otherwise people just forget about it an then it's as if it never happened in the fist place.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me? It was a spectacle of epic proportions. She was doing nothing more than grandstanding.
There is a big difference between making persuasive, coherent arguments in favor of change, and acting like a petulant child and throwing a screaming temper tantrum at someone.
She was getting Mark to make a public contradictory statement on the record about value of privacy given Equifax's lawyers have argued to the contrary in court.
Derisive characterizations "petulant child" "screaming temper tantrum"...are in my view absolutely ridiculous having listened to the exchange.
Everyone already knows that Equifax screwed up. We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know.
What to do about it is still very much in play on multiple levels. As a lawmaker it's important to get a read on the extent to which industry gives a fuck / recognizes a problem and willing to change themselve
Re:She didn't destroy anything (Score:4, Interesting)
But, did she introduce legislation to fix anything. She wasn't elected to tell us that the toilet is backed up. She was elected and handed a plunger.
Re: (Score:3)
What we need is ranked choice voting.
The primaries are manipulated contests that usually involve party insiders pushing other favored insiders.
And if you live in a one-party district like me, the "real" election is the primary because the other party candidate is usually some total freak who's only running because the other party will literally let anyone brave enough to run do so. But because of party manipulation and the "endorsed" label that gets handed out by the party's internal process, the primary i
"Destroys" is a curious claim (Score:2, Insightful)
"Destroys" is a curious claim. He goes back to his job tomorrow at the same salary and position, They keep running things the same way they have before. Minor blush over being called out in public and all is forgotten. But the congress critter will brag about how she said something smart rather than actually accomplishing anything.
This generation needs to learn, Words do not destroy, only actions do. Perhaps this misconception is part of the reason why people are so afraid of words. Or maybe they've
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have to be spoken in fake Latin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dog whistles are like salt -- you don't want to use too much. The whole point is to *sound* reasonable.
Can congress stop throwing Zingers. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old.
The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him.
These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.
I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old. The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him. These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.
I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.
Committees are mostly about sound bites, nothing more. Half the time the committee members aren't even asking questions, they are just making statements. Every now and then you get something big out of a committee, but that only happens in an actually bipartisan committee which is rare these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is a necessary part of the political process. In an ideal world we'd all dispassionately weigh our opinions, carefully ensuring that they're consistently applied to ourselves and others. But we don't, not most of us. We live in a world controlled by the snap judgments of millions of voters, snap judgments informed by voter preconceptions. So it's strategically important to shape those preconceptions.
This is why corporations hire public relations people to cover their tracks on things like pri
Re: (Score:3)
These zingers are how you help build a narrative that can be used in campaigns to change who gets elected to Congress.
From that, you can actually change things. If the elections go your way.
It's a slow and tedious process thanks to all the veto points in our political system. If you'd prefer something that could react more quickly, we'd need some major changes in the fundamentals of how our government works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a zinger because he has no good answer to it and no valid defense against it. I know it's a long shot, but if enough legislators are paying attention, they will remember that next time legislation that might limit data collection comes up.
Nothing matters (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing matters. This has no meaning. He won't lose his job. He won't even lose a second of sleep. He doesn't care about this or anything. Nothing matters.
Because he's rich. Wealth is the only virtue American culture acknowledges.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Wealth is the only virtue American *Progressive* culture acknowledges.
FTFY.
hadn't "sufficiently alleged injury..." (Score:3)
Millions of people were forced to spend their time getting credit reports because of the breach, and time is money, so clearly millions of people were injured to the tune of at least a couple of bucks apiece.
A good start (Score:4, Insightful)
You slapped him with words. I do appreciate this. Really.
Now let actions follow to match the bite to the bark!
Soft Fuzzy Feelings (Score:3)
This is what someone calls "destroying" they need to be put in a bubble the rest of their lives. That CEO has had much tougher talks and dealings to get to where he is now. Not easy climbing the corporate ladder.
Besides, this is just politics. It's only popular right now. This will be forgotten and gone soon enough.
did child make that headline (Score:3)
"Destroyed"? Hardly. This congressional hearings do nothing anyway, they are a waste of time. Congress critters hold them to make it look like they are "doing something".
Congresswoman Destroys Equifax CEO Mark Begor Abou (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. She just chewed him out. Can we chill with the over dramatic headlines? I want to destroy modern journalism and replace with something that just tells me what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have accepted "She introduced legislation."
We agree that journalism is broken, eh? (Score:2)
Do you even have a suggestion to make it better?
My own suggestion involves solutions linked to the problems the journalists keep telling us about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm... Is your handle some sort of radish joke?
Anyway, on the substance, I think you are focusing on one of the old financial models, the eyeballs (or earlobes) for advertisers model. The main proponent of that model these days is probably CNN rather than the clickbait websites. I think it works extremely badly, especially since con artists like #PresidentTweety know how to milk it for free publicity. But it has MANY flaws and weaknesses because time is linear and real news is not.
I think the most successful
Next drama... move along (Score:2)
So long as you don't care about your privacy, corporations won't either.
Re: (Score:2)
How are all of those things I allow to leak about me going to allow people to use and trash my credit record or saddle me with fake debt? I know what I'm allowing out, and I'm fine with it. If I'm not fine with it, it doesn't get to the net.
"destroys"???? (Score:2)
Damn, the devolution of Slashdot into a clickbait headline service is now complete.
Number 7 will shock you!
dialogue on the record (Score:2, Interesting)
A more meaningful dialogue would have been something like
- Porter - would you take this $100 bill to post your information on line now, or even $1000, I have the cash in hand
- Begor - that's personal information
- Porter - how about $10,000, I have a suitcase of cash here
- Begor - Congresswoman, I don't want to engage in this sort....
- Porter - answer the question yes or no
- Begor - this sort of hypothetical...
- Porter - let the record show that Begor wouldn't not take $10,000 to post his personal informatio
Data Breach is not the Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the USA has somehow allowed these credit rating companies to provide data to banks, loan agencies, corporate hiring departments, insurance agencies, etc., without any laws related to verification of the data provided.
It's easier to get your consciousness uploaded to Mr. Frostee than it is to get incorrect info removed from your credit report. There's nothing requiring the credit bureaus to fact-check and verify the sewage coming into their databases, let alone anything requiring them to change the contents of the database when correct material is supplied.
That's what needs to be fixed.
"destroys" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok she had a great point, but can we stop using yahoo phrasing in our headlines?
Lenders are the problem. Not data loss. (Score:3)
Now the banks come after the name on their record. Now it is up to the innocent victim who has to prove he/she was not the person who borrowed.
Right now, a bank with all its financial muscle can accuse someone of defaulting on a loan. The alleged defaulter needs to spend time, and energy to fight it off. And in the end you can't get the money spent on defense back from the bank.
We just have to change the law to say, "If a lender falsely accuses someone of default, it should pay the accused the amount claimed as restitution and the cost of defending the claim". Banks will become lot more diligent in processing the loan application, and be a lot more careful before it brings in the muscle to collect.
Re: (Score:2)
Msmash, you should write for the tabloids. (Score:2)
The World Weekly News is right up your alley, too bad they folded in 2007.
Or you could try the Sun, or the Daily Fail.
Seriously. Destroyed? Destroyed would be 50 years in prison, forfeit the car, homes, boats, jets, possessions. That would be "Destroyed."
*sigh*
Unleash your inner kadashnian (Score:2)
Is I was like OMG dat Congress woman like totally *destroyed* that equinox CEO. It was so incredible I like literally could not even anymore. I literally died right there and I'm still dying now.