Re:Telehealth startup Cerebral shared millions of patients’ ...
by p1esk on Friday March 10, 2023 @03:31PM
(#35100531)
You make good points, and I actually agree with your suggestions. My original concern was not so much about what constitutes a "fair punishment" in this particular case, but about how is this crime is being perceived by our society, and especially how it is perceived by society (i.e. an average American) when compared to some other crimes? I'm more interested in higher level questions: How do we decide on the severity of a crime? Who should decide that?
A breach of one's personal data is clearly less severe than a violent attack upon one's person. But the former could enable the latter (eg if information were purchased by a stalker). And it certainly increases the base level of risk from fraud and adversarial commercial contact (secretly exploiting knowledge of a target to manipulate them into a purchase/sale decision).
Now scale the individual loss up by huge numbers of people, and consider what incentives led to the information security failure. While it's sometimes practical to remediate individual losses of privacy, at scale future injuries are virtually assured. It seems to me that this warrants an application of strict liability principles.
As for restitution, in ym view not only should injured parties be compensated in cash (and much more of it), but they should also be granted, individually or by proxy, partial ownership of the offending firm; that is, existing investors should have the value of their asset significantly diluted. The loss of personal security should be reflected in a loss of financial security to the asset holders.