Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. It’s like a lock manufacturer wanting to let everyone know that the customer had the door open, and their locks weren’t broken.

But in this case, he wasn’t just a lock manufacturer, he was in charge of security for the home.

I can’t help but think of Steve Jobs parable of the Janitor and the Vice President[0]. Reasons stop mattering at his level. Part of the job was to convince Facebook that these permissions were bad for privacy.

Stamos likely knows this. To me, it looks like he resigned when he realized he couldn’t persuade the other executives of things like this.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-...




I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the word "breach" is reserved for specific security incidents that fall above a certain threshold. Something like if X amount of users were affected it must be considered a breach, which means the company must alert the authorities and alert all users who have been affected.

If he's saying it wasn't a breach it's probably because it doesn't fit the actual criteria for considering something a breach, but doesn't mean he's trying to downplay the severity of what happened.

Edit: difference between a data breach vs. a security incident - https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-essentials/whats-t...


> On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack.

“Not a technical hack” and “not a breach” are hardly even related concepts, and anyone, in a technical role or not, working around private data ought to understand that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: