DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⥠Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 1215 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#data#fines#system#care#business#companies#secure#high#through#don
Discussion (55 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Minimizes money usage and does not require any security investments
Personal data needs to be much more of a liability than it currently is for anything to change. Business will respond when the bottom line is affected.
I might suggest a construct like this too.
What do you think how much it cost to do it perfect?
Itâs the difference between being a professional and an amateur (or worse, a âcowboyâ).
It certainly feels much better being an proactive member of society rather than a self-serving arsehole though.
So, there is that.
To defend against the threat OP talks about (intentionally under capitalized corporate entity to avoided liability), insurance should be required, and your cyber insurance underwriter will perform an audit as part of underwriting. It's effectively a bond against fuckery in this context.
(cyber consultant and practitioner)
I think that still aligns the incentives, and University in this case has interest to make sure the data is stored properly.
No judge will fall for that. You should have made backups. And you are responsible for the data of your clients.
Seagate will not in a million years sign anything like this when you buy a HDD.
Sort of like EULA's a lot of the "value" is incredibly theoretical.
guess who holds the bag if capacity needs collapse
I'm not familiar with Korean law but that seems a rather high bar. I don't think we'll see many fines actually levied.
(I'm assuming here that 10% is high enough that nobody would call it a cost of doing business - I could be wrong)
* Before Tax Revenue
* If the company is owned by another company, the revenue is the total of all companies owned by the highest level parent.
* Includes Worldwide Revenue
* Includes companies based in all other Countries.
I would have went for 20%, but if he above applies I wish the US would do the same.
Where is your source for this? It is entirely possible to make a secure computer system, though it does require effort. The article specifically mentions "up to" 10% and the fines applying to companies leaking data on purpose or through negligence. I doubt the fines will be nearly as high for a company that tries to secure a system (and thus prevents more leaks) rather than a company that does not try to secure a system (assuming that leaks will occur), if the same breach happens.
Computers are deterministic (excluding cases where practically impossible cosmic ray events occur), so while we have the power to ensure system security, we should ensure system security. Heck, even just encrypting consumer information and protecting just the keys to this data would already decrease the effectiveness of many data breaches.
You canât. You donât need source for that, just common sense.
Exploits are discovered every day, bugs happen, bad actors.
You can do the best system, shit still happen.
BTW you want a source ? Remember when the freaking CIA data got leaked ? Edward Snowden, ring a bell ?
If the cia couldnât prevent it, I bet you canât.
Edit: "That'll be $23B. Cash or card?"