If a company as big as Petzl knew their gear was being misused, and people were getting hurt in large numbers, I'd expect them to at least put out some documentation explaining why it was a bad idea. That's a low standard to hold someone too, so reasonable.
-
They don't have to study this issue. They simply have to observe the obvious fact that lots of people are getting hurt in this way. That requires no special knowledge. And after all, this is an issue that extends to more than just cryptocurrency: e.g. stolen gmail accounts.
It's not at all obvious to them. They are in a completely different business and they don't keep track of vast majority of stats in the dizzying variety of other businesses including ours. Even experts in our own industry don't keep good track of these novel risks and losses.
![Bruno [Crypto Beret TM] Larvol](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1053671578238562310/6Dcewfo2_normal.jpg)
-
-
Lol, that's just silly. A company the size of AT&T can figure that out by just reading the popular technical press, and listening to their customer's complaints. You're just making excuses at this point; that's not even remotely a valid argument.
-
Regardless of their size, they don't read stuff like Bitcoin Magazine et. al that is extremely far outside their business of providing phone service, and you can't seriously expect them to have learned this kind of thing from common mainstream media.
-
This stuff has had plenty of coverage in very mainstream tech media: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/thieves-drain-2fa-protected-bank-accounts-by-abusing-ss7-routing-protocol/ … Again, that's a ridiculous argument.
-
...and we *know* they're aware of these problems, because phone companies offer services like account PINs to prevent them!
-
That only prevents a proper subset of the problems, of which they probably actually know only about a small fraction. It doesn't imply they have a solution or even know about the dizzying variety of other possible problems.
-
AT&T should be liable for $100-$10000 worth: a multiple of the money they are in contract for. Then, they could be expected to commit a percentage of that money towards security and insurance. It won't cover millions of accounts for $200,000,000 each, but maybe $1000.
-
Or you could actually let liability be defined by the contract and by the kind of product they offer. If people really want the phone companies to provide "identity" services for them, they should convince phone companies to provide such services and pay for them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.