I can't believe GoDaddy is still in business. Shows you can be a horrible company -- borderline scammy back in the day -- and somehow survive.
FWIW we've used Gandi for years and very happy with it.
FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
51–60 of 181 posts
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#52I guess its just the power of advertising but its amazing to me that GoDaddy continues to be a popular solution for hosting, domain registration, etc given their absolute toilet of a reputation.
An unofficial ranking of the most NSFW GoDaddy commercials ever:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/an-unofficial-ranking-of-th...
The Woman(!) Behind GoDaddy's Tasteless, Effective Super Bowl Ads:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/02/06/the-wo...
Who Let These Commercials Be On TV?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRopnyZaR0
GoDaddy's most infamous ads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yFCqOAb9Y
10 SEXIEST GoDaddy Super Bowl Commercials - Sexy Super Bowl Ads:
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> So Trump is demanding loyalty from the members of the National Security Council. Not the FTC. Not the DOE. No. He's demanding loyalty from everyone.
Of course he is, he's a narcissist. A narcissist whose legitimate orders were disobeyed by the military and who has been shot at with the security state high on many people's suspect list.
A cagey narcissist.
But there was a very specific allegation that Trump is asking "civil servants" who they voted for. A claim that is, not only, unsubstantiated, but that deals with a very specific council that, above all others, serves at the president's behest.
May I add that the NSC has been a nest of murderous assholes who draft the infamous kill-list that included a US citizen that Obama bragged of killing (and his underage son)?
These people belong in a crime tribunal, not next door to the Oval Office.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you own a company, why even bother with security? Security is expensive. Wait until a breach is exposed, offer $10 credit monitoring (at best), accept the free press coverage, maybe pinky promise to not lie if you've been particularly egregious in your handling of multiple incidents, and then carry on like normal. (This is tongue-in-cheek, I work in security, but I am frustrated with how often stories like this o…
> As SRE, I've heard executives say this "There is no penalty for breaches, why care?" Honestly, I'm more afraid of reputational loss than government fines. Our customers don't have to use our product. They do because they trust us. Lose that trust and it's awfully hard to get it back.
Crowdstrike took down all windows boxes that had their software installed and didn’t really affect them.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you own a company, why even bother with security? Security is expensive. Wait until a breach is exposed, offer $10 credit monitoring (at best), accept the free press coverage, maybe pinky promise to not lie if you've been particularly egregious in your handling of multiple incidents, and then carry on like normal. (This is tongue-in-cheek, I work in security, but I am frustrated with how often stories like this o…
As SRE, I've heard executives say this "There is no penalty for breaches, why care?" Depends on the industry. I'm in healthcare, and our legal department is always reminding the devs that even a small breach can be financially catastrophic for the company, as they are totaled as $xx,000 per person affected. We get training on it every six months.
I'd like to hear more about this training -
I have started to put together some resources to teach C suite, maybe new-to-the-field lawyers, other interested stakeholders - about website compliance issues..
looking to mimic other good training / learning materials, extra info to consider, maybe collab and send business I can't take on, etc.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I am considering this in the context of 1930's history.
Good for you! Myself, I agree with you that Chamberlain is a great model to understand Trump.
Pretends to be a pacifist while buying time to strengthen the national economy to fight a big war everyone knows is inevitable because everyone wants it.
FDR is also a great model for Trump to understand the political levers to crush both an unelected and disloyal deep state and legitimate opposition.
However, may I also recommend you read a history book that doesn't bracket the world wars?
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#57I can't believe GoDaddy is still in business. Shows you can be a horrible company -- borderline scammy back in the day -- and somehow survive. FWIW we've used Gandi for years and very happy with it.
The power of advertising and first-mover advantage. Outside of the tech space, people really only know of godaddy if they want to buy a domain.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Uh, is Trump's mouth during both of his presidential campaigns citation enough? He's not even shy about his, um, desire for fealty.
Then link it unedited.
He's an asshole, I get it. But half of what is said about him is false (pee pee tapes?) that Americans don't give a darn about what is true.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you own a company, why even bother with security? Security is expensive. Wait until a breach is exposed, offer $10 credit monitoring (at best), accept the free press coverage, maybe pinky promise to not lie if you've been particularly egregious in your handling of multiple incidents, and then carry on like normal. (This is tongue-in-cheek, I work in security, but I am frustrated with how often stories like this o…
> As SRE, I've heard executives say this "There is no penalty for breaches, why care?" Honestly, I'm more afraid of reputational loss than government fines. Our customers don't have to use our product. They do because they trust us. Lose that trust and it's awfully hard to get it back.
I feel this is more important for a younger or smaller company, and less so when stopping a product from one company to switch to another is a pain in the ass or has other problems / risks..
switching from godaddy to another registrar is not super hard, but there are hurdles and sometimes problems occur that even people with experience run into.
I think (some?) people also hope a place that suffers a breach learns from it and makes it near impossible for similar to happen again.
Re: FTC takes action against GoDaddy for alleged lax data security
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you own a company, why even bother with security? Security is expensive. Wait until a breach is exposed, offer $10 credit monitoring (at best), accept the free press coverage, maybe pinky promise to not lie if you've been particularly egregious in your handling of multiple incidents, and then carry on like normal. (This is tongue-in-cheek, I work in security, but I am frustrated with how often stories like this o…
As SRE, I've heard executives say this "There is no penalty for breaches, why care?" Depends on the industry. I'm in healthcare, and our legal department is always reminding the devs that even a small breach can be financially catastrophic for the company, as they are totaled as $xx,000 per person affected. We get training on it every six months.
So the answer is to put the same kind of onerous penalties that companies pay for leaking healthcare data and apply them to any PII / user data. If it can't hit the bottom line bigcorps don't care; liability is the only language they understand.