Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 249 posts

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#11

Post by peterlk »

ringaroundthetx wrote: post #6
peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

What looks weird about it? Most Fortune 500 companies do not have bug bounties and have poor security. One was exploited using a disclosed vulnerability. This is on the polar opposite side of the spectrum of things that would give you the idea of nation state, before ruling everything else out.

Well, like I said, pure speculation, so I don't have much to back it up. Just musing

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#13

Post by burntrelish1273 »

This should be on (e.g., researched) Thom Hartmann and Democracy now. It would also be good if Warren were to weigh in if this appears to provide cover for this oligopoly club member instead of allowing redress by consumers (e.g., every person with credit in America).

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#14

Post by jonny_eh »

ngold wrote: post #8
peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

If the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.

And if the banks had your money, even though you never gave it to them.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#15

Post by cinquemb »

prawn wrote: post #10
peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

Couldn't that be left to a judge to decide?

Well if the FISA court decide(s|d) upon this (assuming that this would fall under some national security protocol), we (the public) would never hear of it… well anytime soon at least… outside of publicly visible aftershocks people would speculate upon.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#16

Post by JumpCrisscross »

curiousgal wrote: post #5

What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?

(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee.

(2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: this requires high intergenerational income mobility. A lack of mobility from the lower classes up is a problem in the long run, but a lack of mobility from the upper classes down is toxic in the short: you'll have idiots with tuborcharged influence.

As to lobbying, that's unavoidable in a democracy. You will need insiders to explain the system to legislators. Banning lobbying means forcing the legislature to make decisions in the dark.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#17

Post by rgbrenner »

peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

That is not an apt analogy.

The resources of a nation state were not required to hack equifax.. a kid with a laptop could have done it.

This is a consumer trust and safety issue because basic care was not taken to protect the data that Equifax was trusted with guarding.

If it turns out that a nation state is the one that carried out the hack.. then that's a national security issue AND a consumer trust and safety issue. But that doesn't excuse gross incompetence.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#18

Post by self_assembly »

This is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer.

How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#19

Post by iamleppert »

peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair.

That's the only way to send a message strong enough that if you are going to operate an IT business, which is what Equifax is, and you have poor security, you will not be protected by the government.

In fact, protecting Equifax and other companies who fail to properly maintain adequate security will send a message to other corporations that this kind of behavior will be tolerated, and these companies may be incentivized to not invest in their security. I've seen situations exactly like this play out at companies before. If the rules of the market suddenly change, so will the industry.

And why should we risk the stability of an entire industry because of one company? The security problems aren't going away, even if we decide to create laws that say they don't matter -- they will still be there at the end of the day, and someone will be able to exploit them. It's bad for business, bad for consumers, and ultimately bad for whatever government is foolish enough to create such policy.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#20

Post by aussieguy1234 »

peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

Equifax knew they were running a vulnerable version of Apache tomcat. To not fix it is pure incompetence, like a bank leaving it's doors unlocked overnight. What did they expect to happen?
Post reply on HN