(no title)
StrangeATractor | 2 years ago
As it is, states and corporations externalize the costs of hacks to the victims of their incompetence. They have no reason to take opsec seriously because they aren't held liable in even the most egrigious cases. Data should be a liability.
nyc_data_geek1|2 years ago
This is the crux of it, methinks. "Data is the new oil" has been a common refrain and as long as the externalities of poor security posture hygiene can be completely outsourced while these companies make mountains of cash by monetizing your every scrap of behavior, attention and information, this will only get worse as every entity seeks to hoard more information on you.
Keeping more data than absolutely necessary for critical business operations should be an existential threat for any entity. Those businesses built on this data ought to take Fort Knox level pains to secure it. Anything short of that and we will continue to exist in a society of deteriorating trust and social contract.
cco|2 years ago
Stripe is a good mental model here, I don't want a person's credit card data, I want to charge them for my product. I love storing a Stripe customer ID, if a hacker were to grab that table, I wouldn't lose (a lot) of sleep, they couldn't do much with it. If that table held credit card data...I would.
That farms out a lot of responsibility to Stripe, but for a side project, I don't have the time necessary to do as good of a job at it relative to Stripe.
SoftTalker|2 years ago
ronsor|2 years ago
The common usage of this phrase isn't too inaccurate. Keep in mind what oil does to the environment, not just during spills but even in normal refining!
zoom6628|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
wmf|2 years ago
dragonwriter|2 years ago
Disbanding the DMV doesn’t make the cost to any actor infinite (“DMV” is an abstraction, and state agencies are routinely created amd destroyed, sometimes as political damage control due to IT scandals [0], but that’s not an infinite cost on anyone.)
[0] e.g., the California Department of Information Technology in 2002: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.computerworld.com/article/2...
AnthonyMouse|2 years ago
The part of the DMV that performs driver testing isn't the part that loses all your data. It wouldn't be impossible to disband their IT department and give the role to some other government agency.
They could also just, you know, stop collecting it. Print your height and hair color etc. on your driver's license and don't store it anywhere else. Instead store a hash of it at the DMV with the salt stored on the license itself, so you can revalidate the license without being able to reconstitute it.
jfengel|2 years ago
Especially since the cost of actual security is very high. You have to build it into every aspect of the system. It makes development cost an order of magnitude more and constrains usability... and you'll still never really be certain
When you take employees into account the cost becomes almost insurmountable. Keeping bank style security means tightly limiting access, making even simple operations more work.
That's not an excuse. That's a warning. We are at grave risk, and we need to completely reconsider how almost every piece of software is written. Competence is hard and expensive.
AndrewKemendo|2 years ago
Exactly. Mandate financial compensation for any and all value derived from data that an individual creates, whether they opted in or not.
If YC ran banner ads and my comment is viewed on the same page as an ad, then I should receive some significant percentage of that ad revenue. If an ad is targeted to a customer on IG through an ad campaign, based on the user's data, then the user should get a significant percentage of that ad.
That should clear everything up.
badrabbit|2 years ago
fsflover|2 years ago
vlan0|2 years ago
wmf|2 years ago
l33t233372|2 years ago
I’d estimate that if this happened, the cost to secure data would grow by about a factor of 3.