43 pointsby elashri2 hours ago14 comments
  • mattmaroon16 minutes ago
    The settlement you get from a class action lawsuit has no relation to the value of the underlying tort. It is not, as an investor would say, a pricing event.

    Everybody’s private information would be worth a different amount if you were talking sheer economic value. A poor persons would be very little, a rich person would be worth very much.

  • bmitch302034 minutes ago
    I wonder how much more organizations would value PII if we could legally demand all of the PII of the executive officers for that same price.
    • Terr_10 minutes ago
      Or if the company had statutory liability for any leaks or misuse of material in their control.
    • constantcrying23 minutes ago
      According to the statement all university employees data was leaked. This of course would include all of the administration, up to the president.
  • cpfohl30 minutes ago
    Class actions like this are opt in; by accepting the settlement you accepted the terms and lost your right to sue for a different (more appropriate to you) value.

    Planet money did a a great segment on how these work and why America is set up this way. I learned a lot about it. You should definitely take a listen[1]. If you aren’t on Apple then search “What to do when you’re in a class action?” And find the podcast (not the summary article).

    1: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id2907834...

  • knightscoopan hour ago
    > This same university which promised a life access to email address which they did not honor, ...

    A tangent, but I had the same thing with my university. I wonder how common this is, and if google is the common thread...

    • CrulesAll42 minutes ago
      "What are you going to do about it." is the new mantra of the oligopolies. These institutions, both private and public sector, are now so big, they get away with things like this all the time. It's only when the big dogs fight that they change. Mussolini(a piece of sh*t, I know) said something similar about the League of Nations(precursor to UN). It works when robins and swallows quarrel, it fails when Eagles are involved.
    • 44 minutes ago
      undefined
  • eviks40 minutes ago
    > They will not take responsibility for their actions, and they will not compensate you for the damage they caused. They will just offer you a small amount of money and hope that you will forget about it.

    Paying for a wrongful action is taking reponsibility and compensating. But also "for the damage they caused" - what's the damage if the info is already out there?

    > The basic problem is that they do not care about us.

    True, of course, but the basic problem is different - "apology" costs more due to the way the legal system is set up, "nothing more". Otherwise you'd get your empty apologies left and right, though strang that you value that more than compensation. Empty words cost even less than $30 (unless, of course, there is a system to make them legally potentially cost more)

    • elashri9 minutes ago
      Author here.

      What I mean is that for an institution of higher education and intellectual research, the bar for ethical action should be higher. An apology (with guarantees and plans for improvement with oversight) is better than put a low price and call it cost of doing business. The damages or negative consequences are going to happen no matter what as information is already out there.

      My point is not about the money that as person I would get or not. My personal private information is mine and should be protected and the law require that. If anyone consider that it is worthless or not is irrelevant. And because the affect does happen on a scale. This breach for example affect probably close to 200k or more (maybe much more).

      My point is we shouldn't normalize that, just if "corruption" is widespread in a place then we should fight it not just say this is how things works. Same thing should happen here. And we should hold people responsible for the decisions liable. This way the simple decision of ignoring cybersecurity or outsource to the lowest bidder suddenly becomes unattractive.

      Also I don't understand the logic is that because I got "abused metaphorically" before then it is not a big deal if this happens to me again. Why do we accept this in such case and not in others? And actually in my particular case, the university breach was probably the first breach of my personal information (others happen later). why would that change anything?

  • Raesan44 minutes ago
    What I thought was most interesting was the statement at the very end: "The poetic nature of writing in grievance in Arabic is much more effective than in English." Differences between languages are so interesting to me. Anyone here know Arabic and feel the same way as the author? What makes Arabic different in that sense?
    • CrulesAll39 minutes ago
      I just watched the film about Spotify "The Playlist". It took a few minutes before I picked up that it was dubbed. I switched back to Norwegian with English subtitles and the film became instantly enjoyable. All languages hold a beauty.

      "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam"

    • JohnLocke437 minutes ago
      I think almost all multilingual people would agree that writing cordially is easier in their native language - whatever that language may be. Expressing heartfelt messages in the language you spoke when developing your identity and emotional maturity is more about just that, rather than what the language happens to be.
  • zkmon41 minutes ago
    It would be interesting to see what calculations went into arriving at the number. They must have started with a large number that should be distributed to all students. Where did that large number come from? Some fund allocated for this kind of purpose? Some ransom that was demanded by the attackers, putting a value on the data? Some psychological tests that determined $30 is enough to keep the young folks from rebellion while not affecting future prospects for the university?
  • recursivedoubts30 minutes ago
    I think if you look at what it costs to purchase your personal information you will find it is worth far less.
  • baiac31 minutes ago
    The author thinks that $30 is an inappropriate amount, but does not suggest what he thinks the correct sum should be.

    It is my opinion that, as with anything that can be copied infinitely for free, his (and my) personal information is worth $0.

    • autoexec23 minutes ago
      > It is my opinion that, as with anything that can be copied infinitely for free, his (and my) personal information is worth $0.

      This would include all software, every movie, song, book, photograph, and TV show available anywhere. I'm glad that the reset of society has decided to place the value of those types of things a little higher than you do.

      The multi-billion dollar a year industry of buying and selling our most personal data only exists because that data isn't worthless. It's extremely valuable, even yours, and the fact that others are using it will end up costing you again and again throughout your life, often monetarily.

    • diab0lic25 minutes ago
      > It is my opinion that, as with anything that can be copied infinitely for free, his (and my) personal information is worth $0.

      I realize I’m responding to an account created four minutes ago but… the output of nearly all work done on a computer meets this criteria. Is all work done on a computer worth $0 in your view?

      • baiac16 minutes ago
        >I realize I’m responding to an account created four minutes ago but… the output of nearly all work done on a computer meets this criteria. Is all work done on a computer worth $0 in your view?

        Yes. Also, this website is very pro-piracy, which means they generally agree with me. (Saying this last part because by mentioning the age of my account it seems you're accusing me of being a troll,)

        • robot-wrangler11 minutes ago
          Go ahead, prove you're not a troll by posting your worthless home address, account numbers, and PIN info in public
        • diab0lic8 minutes ago
          Interesting! I imagine this website is also full of software developers, startup founders, VCs and others who earn a living in software. How do you reconcile all of that work actually being worth $0 with the fact that we are earning a living?
    • arrakark28 minutes ago
      LOL good one
  • ArcHound38 minutes ago
    The issue is, that your personal info is valuable to only you. It also doesn't reflect character worth or personal worth.

    That's how people gave their privacy away to apps - they've realized this is the best deal they can get for it. Conversely, when the court tries to estimate what is the financial impact of such a leak, there's not much to base it off.

    I've just finished The Age of Surveillance Capitalism and it's ridiculous how Google et Al were able to profit from these scraps we gave them. So maybe the value could be higher?

    • phyzix576137 minutes ago
      I think $30 at a high enough volume accounts for the high revenue.
      • ArcHound29 minutes ago
        Right, that makes the case that the court nailed it. It still doesn't feel good though.
  • sapphirebreeze5 minutes ago
    my dog ate my homework.
  • constantcrying24 minutes ago
    Maybe my perspective on Universities is quite different, but I don't understand the complaints of the author.

    This is a public University, they likely outsource some of their IT and somewhere a data breach happened. This data breach apparently affected all employees and students/former students. The faceless "they" the author is blaming in all likelihood was effected more drastically than him.

    The 30 dollars is not a payment for the data. It is a compensation for the damages, something which the author admits are likely zero, as previous data breaches already impacted him more drastically.

    What should the university have done? 30 dollars seem reasonable for the damage caused.

    • autoexec20 minutes ago
      > What should the university have done?

      They should have not collected any more data than they needed, deleted the data they had the instant it wasn't absolutely required, and securely stored all data they truly had to retain. It really isn't that hard to do those things, but universities (and just about everyone else hoovering up your private data) just don't give a shit about you and they know they'll get away with it when their negligence/incompetence results in a breach.

      The fact that in this instance the breach may have also impacted some of the same people who decided to be so massively irresponsible doesn't change anything.

    • LightBug14 minutes ago
      "likely zero"

      If I was (and have been) subject to a data breach, I can guarantee the damages involved are not zero. Even if no specific fraud has taken place (yet).

      Time is money.

  • hollow-moe37 minutes ago
    Rembered that time when Ford estimated human life to not be worth enough in case of lawsuit to add a $5 piece to prevent their cars from exploding on rear impact. I love faceless capitalism.

    Edit: iirc that was about $750

    • trollbridge32 minutes ago
      Well, there's got to be some estimate put on it. It's obviously not worth adding a $5 trillion piece to a vehicle to make it safer, and it's obviously worth spending an extra 0.05¢ to make it safer.
      • hollow-moe22 minutes ago
        > in case of lawsuit

        They valued it in terms of legal fees and possible "compensation" (yay dad is dead but we got 5k), no lawsuit and your value is exaclty zero.

  • kotaKatan hour ago
    Reading investor reports is interesting as well, to see what companies think you're worth to them. Check out Roku's ARPU - it's something like $40 a year now per user in marketing.
    • stavros31 minutes ago
      So basically I have a $40/yr marketing tax on everything I buy, and that's just to pay for Roku.

      I wonder how much things would cost if we cut out the entire multibillion dollar advertising industry and just paid for things directly.