Sarge034 said:
Areloch said:
Sarge034 said:
Areloch said:
So out of the 34k people that were *very* unfortunately compromised in this, my gut says that a very small amount - if any - are likely to have malicious action put against them because of said compromise.
If one malicious action is taken then it's one action too many and Valve, be it a third party subsidiaries fault, should be held accountable. These people gave Valve sensitive information under the promise that information would be secure, it was not, and now heads need to roll. Simple stuff really, holding people accountable.
Sure, but lets also not act like this is the exact same thing as the Sony or Target breaches. That's all I'm saying.
People need to give the situation the appropriate response, and not immediately fire up the internet hatemob-pocalypse machine as is the norm.
It's a bad, but comparatively minor event. I've seen several people pulling the "I HOPE VALVE GETS SUED FOR THIS" rhetoric already.
Issue is fixed, with relatively few affected, and the affected will be contacted by Valve and reparations will ensue as required, if at all. This is the handling I would expect when a screw-up occurs. Trying to start an internet brouhaha doesn't help anyone/anything.
Holding a company accountable for a breach of customer trust and the dispersion of private information is "brouhaha"? You and I sir or madam have very different definitions of an appropriate response then. Be it the Sony, Target, or Valve debacle, they all leaked personal information they were entrusted to keep secure. You want to take numbers and probability of malicious actin into account, I don't give a shit about either of those two things because, as you said, "People need to give the situation the appropriate response..." The situation being a company failed to secure personal information, the response being anything up to legal action for their failure. You said you had experience in server admin stuff, is that maybe making you a biased party?
It's entirely probable I'm slightly biased, sure. For example, I've been in a situation where the company I worked for did nothing wrong and we had a complete outage of all services for 3 hours.
Basically, the datacenter the company operated out of was doing routine maintenance, and due to a freak cascaded hardware failure, both redundant switches that acted as the pipes for the datacenter died. The hardware itself tanked. They had the manufacturer themselves emergency ship replacement hardware out(because it was a hardware fault), but it meant that everything just ceased to exist as far as the internet was aware. Support ticket system, phone system, all websites we hosted including our own, just suddenly ceased to be.
That's a BAD situation to be in when you serve tens of thousands of customers, but the fact of the matter was, there was *literally* nothing we could do until the replacement hardware got there. Not a singular bit.
So having been in a pretty bad hosting/datacenter situation myself on more than one occasion, I'm willing to just accept that sometimes crap breaks catastrophically and you can't personally do anything about it because it was a third party company's fault.
Is it a good thing? Pfthahaha ooooh lord no. Not in the least. But at the same time, I have a hard time justifying the people going "Man, I really hope Valve gets sued!", when a) Valve wasn't the core entity at fault, and b) the response was likely as fast as reasonable, and once the situation was contained, it really, REALLY didn't take long for them to get a statement out that explained what the problem was, why it happened, and how it'll be prevented in the future, in addition to them doing the reaching out to any impacted parties for any needed reparations.
And as I mentioned before, there's a rather high probability the data that was exposed was already put out on the internet by the impacted party themselves.
That said, if someone does, indeed have something malicious happen to them due to the breach, then they absolutely have grounds to seek damages, but as-is, I'm not entirely sure(though of course, I'm not a lawyer) that Valve's handling of the situation is something one has a legal basis to hit them for. If anyone would actually, legally be on the hook, I'd presume it would be the caching provider, as they were the ones serving incorrect and compromised data.
So sure, I'm probably biased to be a bit more favorable to the techs in this because I've been on that end of things before, but at the same time, I'm unconvinced that people who always have their pitchforks and torches at the ready have any idea how this stuff works and are just chomping at the bit to hit the first thing that looks like a target, without consideration for what happened or what, if any, the repercussions are.
Make no mistake, leaked data is bad and I fully acknowledge that, but I just personally can't help but not put this in the same category as the Sony or Target leaks due to the nature of the leak, the scope of the leak, and the data that was compromised in the leak. A sister-category probably, but not the same one.
I don't know what the reasonable middleground is, to be honest. I know that any compromised user is a very bad thing, but I'm also aware that if we burned down every company that ever had a single user compromised for any reason, I don't think we'd have any companies left.
Maybe I'm just simply tired of seeing the internet rage machine at this point. I don't know.