Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agoWhy the ‘mother of all breaches’ is a wake up call for everyonewww.itpro.comexternal-linkmessage-square89linkfedilinkarrow-up1251arrow-down118
arrow-up1233arrow-down1external-linkWhy the ‘mother of all breaches’ is a wake up call for everyonewww.itpro.comRapidcreek@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square89linkfedilink
minus-squareSanctus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up89·2 years agoThis is always the answer. “How do we solve x in y industry?” Make the fucking corpos responsible for their own asses and it will get fixed. If it costs them more money to be breached they will do everything they can to not allow that.
minus-squareSundray@lemmus.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up32arrow-down2·2 years agoThat, or threaten to nationalize their industry. Corporations *hate * that.
minus-squareSanctus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up27arrow-down2·2 years agoCommunications should always be nationalized. It was a mistake letting corporations gatekeep phones and internet.
minus-squareWallEx@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16·2 years agoInfastructure should be nationalized as a whole (roads, rails, water, heating, electricity, waste disposal AMD so on)
minus-squareDave@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 years ago“Externalities” are just expenses that corporations incur that have to be paid by the public. Make externalities losses again.
minus-squareeltimablo@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down2·2 years agoIt’ll also screw over anyone trying to break into the market, ensuring that the big tech companies remain unchallenged indefinitely.
minus-squaredemesisx@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 years agoDisagree if you add the three different factors that I added to account for this in my original comment: As I wrote in my edit, I think the size of fine should be dependent on: size of company the reasonable expectation of security (which would partially attempt to decrease fines for unfixable breaches) the number of unique users affected
minus-squaretheneverfox@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 years agoI think that’s a great starting point for effective legislation. I also think this could easily be twisted to become yet another artificial barrier to entry. I don’t know what to do with that knowledge…I think you’re correct, but I also think there’s no way to pass such a law with its spirit intact today
This is always the answer. “How do we solve x in y industry?” Make the fucking corpos responsible for their own asses and it will get fixed. If it costs them more money to be breached they will do everything they can to not allow that.
That, or threaten to nationalize their industry. Corporations *hate * that.
Communications should always be nationalized. It was a mistake letting corporations gatekeep phones and internet.
Infastructure should be nationalized as a whole (roads, rails, water, heating, electricity, waste disposal AMD so on)
How about Intel?
“Externalities” are just expenses that corporations incur that have to be paid by the public.
Make externalities losses again.
It’ll also screw over anyone trying to break into the market, ensuring that the big tech companies remain unchallenged indefinitely.
Disagree if you add the three different factors that I added to account for this in my original comment:
As I wrote in my edit, I think the size of fine should be dependent on:
size of company
the reasonable expectation of security (which would partially attempt to decrease fines for unfixable breaches)
the number of unique users affected
I think that’s a great starting point for effective legislation.
I also think this could easily be twisted to become yet another artificial barrier to entry.
I don’t know what to do with that knowledge…I think you’re correct, but I also think there’s no way to pass such a law with its spirit intact today