Proposed Bill Could Impose Stiff Fines on Companies With Lax Online Security



+ Add a Comment

I Jedi

I realize for most people here, this is just another "government policy, that is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong!" type of situation; however, consider how easy it was back a few months ago for LulzSec to breach data networks with even simple SQL injections. While the problem of inadequate network security has loomed around the industry for a long time, this bill is more so about protecting the consumer now more than ever before.

While not even I know what's in this proposed bill, other than a penalty fee, is it really that bad that the government finally take action? I think businesses brought this upon themselves, in my opinion, as it's one thing to offer shitty service to consumers, but entirely another for a business to have its customer's information easily accessible to the world.

If forcing companies with penalties, if they don't keep their customer's data safe, is like ticketing someone if they break the speed limit; therefore, endangering other people on the road, I'm all for harsh penalties against said online retailers. Sure, the company may not be endangering anyone's life, but they sure are putting their customer's economic soundness at risk.

This, in my opinion, is an example of when an industry chooses to take an easier, less costly route, which is negative for the consumer, and when it is necessary for government intervention to correct the wrongs of an industry.



Skilled hackers (computer programmers) can break into just about any system put in front of them. The only way to truly protect their customer's private information is to keep data on an offline database when not prohibited.


I Jedi

While you make a decent point, this just goes along with my point about companies needing to do beef up their security. Really, you just pretty much verified what I was trying to get across. :}



I was wondering when this was going to happen. Though I am not all that surprised. Though depending on the policies that are attached to this law will determine how it will be implamented. Though with this at least, Large corporations who deal with money transactions, can no longer try to skimp out on paying for implamenting new security policies, as well as mainting their current ones. I know network security is not cheap, but it is one that should not be overlooked. 


Though with that said. . . the job of being a network security admin, just got that mcuh harder with an added bounse of risk. 



Hi, I found this blog once, then lost it. Took me forever to come back and find it. I wanted to see what comments you got. Nice blog by the way.I wanted to thank you for the excellent info you have posted on your web site.

laser tattoo removal canberra






Now they are going to turn law abiding companeys into criminals. What a fucked up system. Go after the hackers and theives and not pick on easy prey.



I guess you are also against auto safety.  Ford, GM, etc. were all law abiding companies in the 1950s, but lots of people were dying in car accidents, so the government mandated seatbelts and airbags.  We expect products that are sold to us to be safe.  This law is the first step in expanding that idea to the digital realm.



If i entrusted a company to keep my information safe, and "script kiddies" can easily bypass their security measures, what does it say about the value they have placed on my personal information?

Just like laws that go after hackers and theives, something needs to be done about corporations and how they handle our personal info. 

It is true that no system is 100% secure, doesn't mean reasonable measures can be taken to ensure that the system is more secure.



Law abiding company. That's an oxymoron right?



+1! :)

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.