A Ticketmaster hack spilled sensitive data for 560 million customers, hackers say
A Ticketmaster hack spilled sensitive data for 560 million customers, hackers say
The hacking group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility and is seeking $500 million
ShinyHunters posted on Tuesday night in a hacking forum that it obtained data from Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, including customers’ names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, and order details, Cyber Daily wrote. The group is reportedly attempting to sell the stolen data for $500 million.
From this other link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-29/ticketmaster-hack-allegedlyshinyhunter-customers-data-leaked/103908614
It said 1.3 terabytes of customer data possessed by Ticketmaster including names, addresses, credit card numbers, phone numbers and payment details is up for sale.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Are you salivating at the mere thought of this, then?
Amazon execs may be personally liable for tricking users into Prime sign-ups
This is a start, but the fact that they come up with this:
Executives had urged the court to dismiss the FTC's claims against them. They argued that the FTC "singled them out 'for an ‘unprecedented sanction'" when the agency had "only recently started prosecuting companies for using 'dark patterns'" under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act. They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?
Suggests that they are not being serious.
And I doubt the fine will be sufficient for them to re-evaluate their attitudes. What we need is full asset seizure (every last cent, home, car, everything) and to send them to do a decade as junior support personnel at a late stage Alzheimer's care facility (my dad had Alzheimer, so I am not being callous for the sake of it).
They can also do 20 years in prison with no parole if they are too good for community service.
I'm not sure how that's indicative of the FTC not being serious? You're quoting a defense argument, of course they're going to argue the agency is wrong.
With respect to the US regulatory/judicial actions, I find it difficult to believe that they will be sufficient to nudge the criminals towards genuine self-reflection and a desire to change their behaviour. Similarly, other criminals are likely see enforcement action as more of a "risk to be managed" as opposed to a strong incentive to re-evaluate their approach to criminal schemes.
This is of course not a US only problem, albeit there are countries were consumer rights and business criminality is less socially acceptable.
I didn't interpret their argument as stating "the agency is wrong". More like "we weren't told this was wrong, we were one of the caught ... so this claim should be dismissed."
I would even go as far as saying that this is a sign of disrespect towards judicial processes.
It's a fairly routine argument by the defense (we're being singled out/the regulations are unclear). And regarding federal enforcement, there's a lot of hamstringing by Congress.
All that to say, this is arguably a good sign of the FTC properly enforcing, not a reason for pessimism.
I hope you're right. :)