Technology

60052 readers

2851 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

516

2.9 billion hit in one of the largest data breaches ever — full names, addresses and SSNs exposed (www.tomsguide.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay, but I'm not sure how revelant that is. The article doesn't say only Americans were affected, it says the exact opposite.

[...] this data likely comes from both the U.S. and other countries around the world.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Like I said, I didn't read the article, but only Americans would have social security numbers.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Social security numbers being involved in a breach does not mean that the breach only affects Americans. Some records might not have an equivalent ID number associated with them at all, and some records could have similar ID numbers from other countries. They also list current address as part of the data leaked but the fact many people don't have a current address didn't seem to cause you any confusion. The original source lists "information about relatives", if that was in this title would you have assumed only people with living relatives were included?

"I didn't read the article" is a poor excuse when you're commenting on the believability of the article. What happened here is you saw an article, immediately assumed it was about the US, realised that doesn't make any sense, then dismissed the article without even bothering to check because the title doesn't fit the US exclusively. It's crazy to me that you wouldn't even consider the fact it's not an exclusively US-based leak.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago

I mentioned the not reading the article so people would not waste their time citing facts from the article that may explain the headline that suggested billions social security numbers were leaked. I made no assumptions about missing addresses, as the headline didn't mention anything about missing addresses. I even mentioned that the event the article discussed was probably pretty bad -- definitely not a negative against the article's believability. I'm only guilty of judging a book by its cover, and in an existence of limited time, nobody has time to do any more than that except for limited exceptions. I did not choose to make this article an exception. The headline was mathematically deceptive, and my comment was about that. Nothing more.

If you see an article highlighting a breach of social security numbers and don't assume it's about the U.S., that's crazy to me.