Re:Telehealth startup Cerebral shared millions of patients’ ...
by Zak on Friday March 10, 2023 @02:04PM
(#35099320)
When measuring a large scale crime like that of Cerebral, the number of victims is as important as the magnitude of the impact. There were 3.1 million victims. Stealing a dollar each from 3.1 million people would get the kind of law enforcement response that stealing $3.1M does even though the individual impact of that crime is virtually nil.
Re:Telehealth startup Cerebral shared millions of patients’ ...
by p1esk on Friday March 10, 2023 @03:22PM
(#35100392)
Stealing a dollar each from 3.1 million people would get the kind of law enforcement response that stealing $3.1M does even though the individual impact of that crime is virtually nil
That's an interesting question whether it's fair to treat it this way. I can see valid arguments on both sides.
Re:Telehealth startup Cerebral shared millions of patients’ ...
by anigbrowl on Friday March 10, 2023 @03:11PM
(#35100212)
But your approach requires us to wait for something bad to happen to someone else before forming an opinion. Why exactly should people whose privacy has been violated have to be sacrificed further before any value is assigned to their privacy? We can use retroactive data to estimate the downside risk.
True, a lot of people are victims of their own stupid decisions. A society should still try reduce the likelihood of the stupid decisions, especially when there are obvious bad actors actively trying to increase such likelihood.