Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanisnan | Hacker News Reader

Ok, but that's not what the article says. It says Okta was breached. Okta was not breached.

It says Okta was "hit by" a breach, which it was. A breach happened, and Okta was impacted. Furthermore, it happened to data which Okta is ultimately responsible for, and Okta should be held responsible for their choices which led to their employees' data being stolen.

I'm not sure why you're splitting hairs on this.

"another" is the weasel word

It implies this breach is the same as the previous breach, which it's not.

Ars has gone to shit over the last decade.

I don't think I agree that the use of the word "another" implies that the breaches were equal, but I can see why others might interpret it that way.

I won't disagree with opinion on the quality of Ars' reporting or this particular article, but I do disagree with the original comment's statement that "this had nothing to do with Okta".

Without knowing the context, I doubt anyone reading the title is thinking "maybe they mean another breach where Okta is impacted but Okta is not the culprit, despite recent events". No, the title is simply misleading. They could have swapped Okta for another company's name or something like "Personal information stolen in healthcare company breach", and the news likely wouldn't get much attention, which is as much as what the article is actually worth. Singling out Okta among many of that company's clients is simply meaningless and wrong and does nothing other than attention grabbing.

Immediately what I thought when I read it.

The person you’re responding to is being obtuse to the point where it feels like trolling or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Certainly a bad-faith argument.

> but I do disagree with the original comment's statement that "this had nothing to do with Okta".

I could have probably phrased this as "this had nothing to do with Okta's technology."

Because context and sentiment matters. By your logic clickbait is perfectly fine and we should maybe do more because they are (usually) technically correct.

Just continue reading the title all the way to the end? I know it's a long haul but come on, we can't just stop at the first bit of punctuation:

> Okta hit by another breach, this one stealing employee data from 3rd-party vendor

It's clear a breach has affected Okta employees.

It says Onta was hit by a breach, Okta was hit ny a breach, it even says that is was a third party vendor. That's exactly what happened.

The problem is the article is farming clicks by piggie backing off of the very recent and public breach Okta had. I don't know if there's a term for this, but it's clear to me they're abusing oktas name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com