Every country has their own instance of the company. So in this case there will be a Hilton that owns Hilton USA, Hilton UK, Hilton Canada, etc. The data breach took place in the UK so the maximum fine would be based on revenue of the previous fiscal year of Hilton UK, not Hilton (Worldwide). Unless they propose on fining companies that aren't responsible for the data breach.
And if they do decide to go after the global entities then all they will do is create separate companies to handle all of the customer data processing that are paid just enough to keep things running. Then Hilton will say the data breach will the fault of Hilton Customer Data Processing Company and the fine will be minimal.
I'm not saying how these companies have acted is right. I think that there should be jail time involved for the CxOs instead of large fines for their inept handling of customer data (and especially those that brought about the global financial crisis).
That could be - though we presume that the UK IT asset that was breached belonged to a separate corporate entity from Hilton itself - a big assumption. Also, there were actually two breaches in 2015, only one in the UK. The other was in the US. The question is: does it matter how many of the 350,000 affected were EU citizens or is even one victim enough to bring a fine - let alone the maximum fine?
We'd like to draw a neat line and say "Tesla is being propped up by government subsidies whereas [company x] is surviving on its wits & talents in the marketplace." But is that true? Do you really want to open the can o' worms that is government subsidies of various industries or players, whether through direct taxpayer support, tax incentives/loopholes (just direct taxpayer support by other means), infrastructure investment, R&D investment, preferential immigration policies, etc. etc. The list is long. So...as they say...people who live in glass office parks...
Nice sentiment...almost certainly wrong. Syria is exhibit 1 in the "what politicians say and do matters a lot" argument. From what I've seen: no-warrant arrests and detention, torture and barrel bombs beat Powerpoint slides. Every. Single. Time.
Did anyone bother to notice that this entire thread is based on an inaccurate assertion? The story was NOT retracted. It was CORRECTED - meaning that a piece of inaccurate information in the original story (about the laptop being connected to the ICS/SCADA system) was rewritten to clarify that the computer was not connected to that part of Burlington Electric's network. A retraction would mean WAPO removed the story from its website and disavowed its contents. No such thing happened. In fact, you can still read the story using the link provided in the Slashdot post - a sure sign that it HASN'T BEEN RETRACTED!!! Slashdot should probably RETRACT the incorrect story about the Washington Post's (non-existent) retraction.
Well...I think Mr. Roberts bona fides as an expert on information security and his area of interest in avionics are beyond question. He's been presenting on these topics for upwards of 5 years, so this is hardly a publicity stunt.
You have to read the whole article - ASF is not the only example cited. It is the only example cited within the first three paragraphs of the story, however.
Look, studies have shown that driver reaction time while texting and driving is far, far worse than the reaction time for impaired driving (aka driving drunk), which is clearly illegal. In other words, we (your fellow citizens) are a lot safer with you drunk driving than driving while texting. (See this Car & Driver study: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it) So, apply the same logic as you would with drunk driving. Sure, these drivers were stopped at a red light, but would you expect the cop to look the other way if they were swigging from a bottle of vodka at the same red light ("well, the car isn't moving right now, so...")? He's right to read the law literally and also to assume that if they're texting at a red light, they likely won't stop texting once the car is moving. Take away: texting behind the wheel is a serious danger to public health and should be tolerated to about the same extent that we, as a society, tolerate drunk driving - which is not at all. My 2c.
Update courtesy of Google: Mudge will be working in Motorola Mobility's Advanced Technology & Projects (ATAP). From the web: "The group's mission is to deliver breakthrough innovations to the company's product line on seemingly impossible short timeframes. ATAP is skunkworks-inspired. Optimized for speed. Small, lean, resourced. With agility, freedom from bureaucratic constraints, and a willingness to embrace risk as core attributes." Hmm...sounds kinda like DARPA!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
So 30 people have their info exposed? What's the big deal. ;-)
Every country has their own instance of the company. So in this case there will be a Hilton that owns Hilton USA, Hilton UK, Hilton Canada, etc. The data breach took place in the UK so the maximum fine would be based on revenue of the previous fiscal year of Hilton UK, not Hilton (Worldwide). Unless they propose on fining companies that aren't responsible for the data breach.
And if they do decide to go after the global entities then all they will do is create separate companies to handle all of the customer data processing that are paid just enough to keep things running. Then Hilton will say the data breach will the fault of Hilton Customer Data Processing Company and the fine will be minimal.
I'm not saying how these companies have acted is right. I think that there should be jail time involved for the CxOs instead of large fines for their inept handling of customer data (and especially those that brought about the global financial crisis).
That could be - though we presume that the UK IT asset that was breached belonged to a separate corporate entity from Hilton itself - a big assumption. Also, there were actually two breaches in 2015, only one in the UK. The other was in the US. The question is: does it matter how many of the 350,000 affected were EU citizens or is even one victim enough to bring a fine - let alone the maximum fine?
agreed!
We'd like to draw a neat line and say "Tesla is being propped up by government subsidies whereas [company x] is surviving on its wits & talents in the marketplace." But is that true? Do you really want to open the can o' worms that is government subsidies of various industries or players, whether through direct taxpayer support, tax incentives/loopholes (just direct taxpayer support by other means), infrastructure investment, R&D investment, preferential immigration policies, etc. etc. The list is long. So...as they say...people who live in glass office parks...
Interesting. Which trade mags are worth a look/read? Interested to see if this (now historical) debate play out publicly in any way.
agreed
Nice sentiment...almost certainly wrong. Syria is exhibit 1 in the "what politicians say and do matters a lot" argument. From what I've seen: no-warrant arrests and detention, torture and barrel bombs beat Powerpoint slides. Every. Single. Time.
Did anyone bother to notice that this entire thread is based on an inaccurate assertion? The story was NOT retracted. It was CORRECTED - meaning that a piece of inaccurate information in the original story (about the laptop being connected to the ICS/SCADA system) was rewritten to clarify that the computer was not connected to that part of Burlington Electric's network. A retraction would mean WAPO removed the story from its website and disavowed its contents. No such thing happened. In fact, you can still read the story using the link provided in the Slashdot post - a sure sign that it HASN'T BEEN RETRACTED!!! Slashdot should probably RETRACT the incorrect story about the Washington Post's (non-existent) retraction.
right?
I love this!
Well...I think Mr. Roberts bona fides as an expert on information security and his area of interest in avionics are beyond question. He's been presenting on these topics for upwards of 5 years, so this is hardly a publicity stunt.
You have to read the whole article - ASF is not the only example cited. It is the only example cited within the first three paragraphs of the story, however.
really excellent feedback. appreciated.
Look, studies have shown that driver reaction time while texting and driving is far, far worse than the reaction time for impaired driving (aka driving drunk), which is clearly illegal. In other words, we (your fellow citizens) are a lot safer with you drunk driving than driving while texting. (See this Car & Driver study: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it) So, apply the same logic as you would with drunk driving. Sure, these drivers were stopped at a red light, but would you expect the cop to look the other way if they were swigging from a bottle of vodka at the same red light ("well, the car isn't moving right now, so...")? He's right to read the law literally and also to assume that if they're texting at a red light, they likely won't stop texting once the car is moving. Take away: texting behind the wheel is a serious danger to public health and should be tolerated to about the same extent that we, as a society, tolerate drunk driving - which is not at all. My 2c.
Update courtesy of Google: Mudge will be working in Motorola Mobility's Advanced Technology & Projects (ATAP). From the web: "The group's mission is to deliver breakthrough innovations to the company's product line on seemingly impossible short timeframes. ATAP is skunkworks-inspired. Optimized for speed. Small, lean, resourced. With agility, freedom from bureaucratic constraints, and a willingness to embrace risk as core attributes." Hmm...sounds kinda like DARPA! ;-)
PublicIntelligence has a copy of an April, 2011 report identifying problems with drone communications including the risk of jamming and "lost link" events: http://publicintelligence.net/usaf-drones-in-irregular-warfare/