I agree, Amazon should have required 2FA for anyone with a Ring system, but should they really be legally liable? Basically anything without 2FA is "vulnerable" to credential-stuffing.
This feels like suing a home builder because burglars can break the windows.
Yes, you should be held civilly (and perhaps criminally) liable when you create an insecure corporate surveillance apparatus. This isn’t Pinterest or Instagram for comparison.
Home builders don't have you sign an agreement that says you are responsible for break-ins. It doesn't seem to be necessary.
If this is all sensible and normal and rational and the victims' fault, why is there an agreement with everything electronic that says the user is responsible if anything goes wrong and the service provider is not? We should just outlaw that and go back to that misty land of yore - the default legal environment - and see what it is like. It can't be that bad.
I'm sick of people complaining about the "legacy" legal system when it's been essentially eliminated for ordinary people. Maybe we should try it again.
> ...John Yanchunis, the attorney bringing the suit, told Business Insider, adding that "all indication is that the security is lax on these machines."
"These machines" are only ever popped by the customer sharing their password. If you can sue a company for their customers' bad decisions, then we've got problems.
If they wanted to avoid this they should not have used the word Security as much as they did on ring.com. It's mentioned 5-6 times and even has a huge bit about the neighborhood watch app.
ADT and other security companies have been sued and lost for less, what makes Amazon an exception?
se•cu•ri•ty sĭ-kyoo͝r′ĭ-tē►
n.
Freedom from risk or danger; safety.
n.
Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.
n.
Something that gives or assures safety, as.
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out.
6 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 21.7 ms ] threadI agree, Amazon should have required 2FA for anyone with a Ring system, but should they really be legally liable? Basically anything without 2FA is "vulnerable" to credential-stuffing.
This feels like suing a home builder because burglars can break the windows.
If this is all sensible and normal and rational and the victims' fault, why is there an agreement with everything electronic that says the user is responsible if anything goes wrong and the service provider is not? We should just outlaw that and go back to that misty land of yore - the default legal environment - and see what it is like. It can't be that bad.
I'm sick of people complaining about the "legacy" legal system when it's been essentially eliminated for ordinary people. Maybe we should try it again.
> ...John Yanchunis, the attorney bringing the suit, told Business Insider, adding that "all indication is that the security is lax on these machines."
"These machines" are only ever popped by the customer sharing their password. If you can sue a company for their customers' bad decisions, then we've got problems.
ADT and other security companies have been sued and lost for less, what makes Amazon an exception?
se•cu•ri•ty sĭ-kyoo͝r′ĭ-tē►
It will be interesting to watch how this pans out.