Hacker News Reader

Comment by kahnjw | Hacker News Reader

You're oversimplifying. This has more to do with politics than SE technical competence. Banking software and systems are regulated end to end, because banking systems are literally the backbone of the global economy.

Equifax? Not so much. This exposure hurts consumers, but it doesn't even put a dent in the economy as a whole. That is why these firms are allowed to operate with such shitty security. If they get hacked, whatever, just a few hundred million customers data exposed to identity fraud. It takes a chunk out of Equifax stock but they'll probably survive. What is the incentive for congress to enact laws regulating corporate handling of consumer data?

Put it this way. Who do you think is louder in Washington: consumer advocacy groups or corporate lobbyists?

View on HN

> What is the incentive for congress to enact laws regulating corporate handling of consumer data?

The already did, it's called the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act:

> In terms of compliance, the key rules under the Act include The Financial Privacy Rule which governs the collection and disclosure of customers' personal financial information by financial institutions. It also applies to companies, regardless of whether they are financial institutions, who receive such information. The Safeguards Rule requires all financial institutions to design, implement and maintain safeguards to protect customer information. The Safeguards Rule applies not only to financial institutions that collect information from their own customers, but also to financial institutions – such as credit reporting agencies, appraisers, and mortgage brokers – that receive customer information from other financial institutions.

Note the inclusion of CRAs.

GLBA was enacted in the 90s and is a vague set of guidelines for financial and related industries to follow. I'm talking about real system regulation, down to the level of protocols.

I'm not sure they actually care in Washington. I was impacted by the OPM breech. I got a form letter and some credit monitoring. All that outrage and, as near as I can tell, not a damned thing has changed.

I might be biased and jaded.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. There is near zero incentive for congress to enact consumer protection legislation.

There's incentive (as it's their job, or is said to be). What there isn't is a downside if they don't.

If we're talking about economic incentive, having no downside for not doing thing A is equivalent to having no incentive to do thing A. Re: opportunity cost.

Yes. In economics that's the context. But in terms of civics, I think the term is: voter apathy.

I was adding to, not arguing with.

especially when they're trying to dismantle what little we have (CFPB)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com