Hacker News Reader

Comment by blondie9x | Hacker News Reader

That's a bit different than complete access to the complete payments database isn't it?

OPM has had major leaks. I think it’s safe to assume most federal IT leaks like a sieve.

So why should we care if the administration busts up the dam with a sledgehammer!

If outsiders with the CCP's interests at heart are able to use this data, why can't outsiders with the U.S.'s interests at heart be able to use this data?

I always feel like there's a Monty Hall aspect to these discussions where people forget that the past has occurred and it has a bearing on the present. The choice isn't between "observe data protections" and "don't observe data protections." Something was behind door #3.

Your personal data is already public due to commercial breaches. Does that mean that your current bank, etc. shouldn’t be expected to obey privacy laws?

No, but I'd expect an auditor to be able to do their job, third party, first party, or whatever. Especially if my bank was lying about my money.

First, the idea that the bank is lying is unfounded speculation, not a given. Second, if you were auditing a bank you would be scrupulous about how you get access and keeping it limited because you be would want it to hold up in court and avoid any questions about tampering or planting evidence. You’d use qualified auditors with clean records, not someone who couldn’t pass a background check.

Now, of course, if your goal was to create propaganda or to install extra-legal modifications to block payments without having to follow normal processes, you might do this because you’re getting you’ll never have to defend your actions in court. That would be consistent with what we’ve seen of the “fraud” being talked up despite being quickly debunked because most of the people sharing stories don’t care whether it’s true as long as it feels right.

> Second, if you were auditing a bank you would be scrupulous about how you get access and keeping it limited because you be would want it to hold up in court and avoid any questions about tampering or planting evidence.

er, not if my role was as a consultant of the parent bank and my assignment was to close branches that were "losing money".

note: i even specified "first party" because in my mind i was envisioning a first party audit, of which i have done many as a consultant.

You can't tell the difference between:

1) a random citizen murders someone and 2) a cop murders someone on duty?

Yes, ideally the country would be safe enough that no one was killed, and you can even argue that it don't matter because the end result is the same (hell, some people would even argue whoever the police kills had it coming). But most people understand that when those entrusted with special powers for the public good abuse that trust and engage in criminal behavior, it’s a far more serious issue.

If you disagree with me, explain why. Egregious personal attacks are against site guidelines. Knock it off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com