81–90 of 311 posts
I know many mention facebook or google being hacked will be an even bigger deal. But I wonder, with all the online spaces google/facebook has under control (ads, analytics, cdns, dns, crawlers, your phone, etc.) if they suspect a breach, they could literally disable any website or device that tries to share that information. If it happened in the past, well, who will know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, if it's truly an asset, can it be taxed as an asset? If I give a company a car, that is taxed. If I give a company my data which is worth more than a car, it isn't. Is it possible that current accounting/tax law can be interpreted so that these are viewed similarly?
Using the black market as a standard, your identity-related information isn't worth enough to be taxable.[0][1][2] The more common data you give away is worth even less. Your "gift" is akin to giving away a few grains of sand to a glassmaker who provides a free grain counting service. Now let's say you dumped a lot sand that we could value at $10K. Any smart sand-counting glassmaker will claim his once "free" sand co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hundreds? Are you sure?
I know a guy who uses a service that creates a unique email account for every service he signs up for. That way, he tells me, if he ever gets any spam, he can delete the account and it doesn't affect any of his other email accounts.
I think the issue right now is that private user information is viewed as an asset, not a liability. If we could find a way to make it more of a liability, companies would be less likely to collect it just for the sake of having it, and they would be more proactive in securing it.
User accounts? Really? This is Yahoo we’re talking about. You really do need user accounts to run an email service
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the black market as a standard, your identity-related information isn't worth enough to be taxable.[0][1][2] The more common data you give away is worth even less. Your "gift" is akin to giving away a few grains of sand to a glassmaker who provides a free grain counting service. Now let's say you dumped a lot sand that we could value at $10K. Any smart sand-counting glassmaker will claim his once "free" sand co…
It is when you have 3B records
OP mentioned his data alone, which isn't worth squat unless the transaction says otherwise. Meaning, if OP sold his data to a company for a taxable amount, he would be taxed on that income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, if it's truly an asset, can it be taxed as an asset? If I give a company a car, that is taxed. If I give a company my data which is worth more than a car, it isn't. Is it possible that current accounting/tax law can be interpreted so that these are viewed similarly?
Using the black market as a standard, your identity-related information isn't worth enough to be taxable.[0][1][2] The more common data you give away is worth even less. Your "gift" is akin to giving away a few grains of sand to a glassmaker who provides a free grain counting service. Now let's say you dumped a lot sand that we could value at $10K. Any smart sand-counting glassmaker will claim his once "free" sand co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hundreds? Are you sure?
With gmail, you don't need it - foo+bar@gmail.com will end up as foo@gmail.com and you can filter by To: header. I’m sure spammers have already figured that out.
I get addresses rejected as invalid when signing up for some service at least once a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody ever said they are active users or unique individuals. I know for example I personally created hundreds of accounts on Yahoo! over the years.
Hundreds? Are you sure?
> A massive data breach at Yahoo in 2013 was far more extensive than previously disclosed, affecting all of its 3 billion user accounts, new parent company Verizon Communications Inc. said on Tuesday. Imagine the buyers remorse
Does anyone have insight on how this works? Do you just sue the pants off of the execs, or the lawyers who did due diligence, or the SREs maybe? Do the clawback the difference in goodwill + legal costs from the selling investors? Is there recourse at all? It'll probably the some poor schmuck SRE getting the blame, like always, right?
It’s security theatrics, not actual security. And if you stand up for something more, get ready to quit because you won’t be listened to.