Hacker News Reader

Comment by josho | Hacker News Reader

Of course they didn't build privacy/security measures. And it was the right business call as well.

By not building privacy and security aspects they were able to invest in growing marketshare. That growth enabled their $1b Amazon acquisition. Had the company slowed down its growth to build privacy protections they may have missed out on that exit.

A $5m fine does nothing to ensure other companies do the right thing.

View on HN

Thank you.

This is a great example of both perverse incentives that are inextricably embedded into finance, and the lack of accountability that makes these kinds of judgments absurd.

A $5m fine probably encourages companies to go the other way, cutting corners where possible.

Also important to note that the entity that did the illegal act is different than the one paying the fine.

Yes, but the entity paying had to have constructive knowledge of their operations when they purchased them. A slap on the wrist is what they counted on to eliminate a competitor and get it cheap. If only there were clawback measures.

A very important point. This generalizes; currently the security enforcement regime is ineffective because there is no real liability for security breaches. If companies were on the hook for damages from breaches, you can bet that things would tighten up. (And of course tech would improve/evolve more slowly! Few benefits come without costs. I think the tradeoff is worth it though.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com