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

Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#31

Post by shirro »

gruez wrote: post #6

>She was then served electronically with papers from the US District Court of Florida outlining Adidas' case against her. I don't get it, based on this[1] it looks like electronic service is only possible if the party consented. That seems fairly reasonable. How would this have happened? Is there more to this? The docket for this case is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66634655/adidas-ag-v-th... . I'd be v…

My understanding is there are international agreements (eg Hague Convention) when serving civil court documents to someone in another sovereign nation like Australia. US courts have no jurisdiction here and nobody cares about their rules. I think electronic service has similar limitations in Australia.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#33

Post by tedunangst »

> In court documents seen by the ABC, default judgements were handed down by the US courts and damages were awarded against Ms Luke of $US200,000 ($293,000) in the NBA case and $US1million ($1.5 million) in the Adidas matter.

Can we see these documents?

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#34

Post by lotsofpulp »

COGlory wrote: post #13

My brother in law had his identity stolen about 6 months ago. He went through the normal routine of cancelling everything, putting holds on everything, etc. He thought he was in the clear, until last week, he received a letter in the mail for a summons for several felonies, including fraud, in the state of Utah (he lives in PA). It is insane to me that PayPal, Venmo, VISA, etc, all can allow someone who isn't him to…

The only way this gets fixed is if enough people get put through the wringer through no fault of their own and they finally start demanding politicians to do something about it.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#35

Post by ganoushoreilly »

nomilk wrote: post #23
Aeolun wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what the companies hope to gain out of this aside from loads of bad publicity?

That was my first thought too. Perhaps companies can't easily differentiate between cases of stolen identity and cases where a bad actor claims their identity was stolen.

Maybe I misread but if they were Exparte, were they implying she wasn't there and it's possible all these verdicts were handed down without any of her input? In that case the companies may not / wouldn't know? Either way still a horrible situation.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#36

Post by mhb »

nmfisher wrote: post #22
j-bos wrote: post #4

Situations like these keep bringing me back to the idea that important actions should require an actual, in person, human notary seal. Contract signings, online court service, title changes, etc should not be valid without an offline record examiner who affirms under threat of perjury that the parties involved are who they claim (or are claimed to be).

Some countries/jurisdictions do exactly that, and trust me, it's a massive pain in the ass. Would you really want to visit a notary just to set up an eBay account? Because that's what you're proposing. The existing system isn't foolproof but, by and large, it works perfectly well. If the transactions in TFA truly were fraudulent, no court is going to hold her liable. The bigger problem here is a US court being happy…

There could be other options. Perhaps the notary could choose how she authenticates a person. And perhaps that could be using a clever federated scheme that arises because of this need.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#37

Post by mhb »

boondoggle16 wrote: post #32

So what do you do in a situation like this? I mean really? Total punisher mode, make other judges think twice and sacrifice yourself?

Recoup your $1.2M using the identities of everyone up and down the chain of this travesty.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#38

Post by justinclift »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #14
mvdtnz wrote: post #3

This is absurd. This is just as much as indictment of ridiculous American courts as it is the corporations prosecuting such a case. What is happening in that clown country that a civil case against a person who wasn't even involved in the infraction can be judged liable when they are not even present to defend themselves? America is a bully nation.

[flagged]

Probably not every discussion. But the ones that do may have a point. ;)

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#39

Post by jedberg »

If she was compromised by credential stuffing at PayPal, I have to say I'm disappointed. I actually wrote the anti-credential-stuffing code 20 years ago. It was one of the core component of PayPal security. We were one of the first sites to get those kinds of attacks so we got good at stopping them.

I would be sad if that skillset had been lost.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#40

Post by adanto6840 »

j-bos wrote: post #4

Situations like these keep bringing me back to the idea that important actions should require an actual, in person, human notary seal. Contract signings, online court service, title changes, etc should not be valid without an offline record examiner who affirms under threat of perjury that the parties involved are who they claim (or are claimed to be).

We have e-notaries in Nevada. It requires a webcam/ability to make a video call, and to show your ID in a solid resolution. It's actually probably not the worst thing.

I'm sure it happens, and I know the bar for becoming a notary public (official able to notarize documents) isn't that high, but I haven't heard about a ton of fraud where things were falsely notarized. I suppose accessible notarization is a positive thing, at least as long as fraud doesn't become a problem with the system.

Post reply on HN