The problem is that they don't "need" to. There's no consequences for not caring, and no incentive to care.

We need laws and a competent government to force these companies to care by levying significant fines or jail time for executives depending on severity. Not fines like 0.00002 cents per exposed customers, existential fines like 1% of annual revinue for each exposed customer. If you fuck up bad enough, your company burns to the ground and your CEO goes to jail type consequences.

▲

rafram 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This kind of response went out of fashion after Enron. Burning an entire company to the ground (in that case Arthur Andersen) and putting thousands out of work because of the misdeeds of a few - even if they were due to companywide culture problems - turned out to be disproportionate, wasteful, and cruel.

▲

knome 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the answer to that is a functional social safety net for the innocent employees to land in, not allowing companies to violate the law with impunity.

▲

rafram 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re describing a system where taxpayers foot the bill for data breaches.

	▲	wry_durian 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's exactly backwards. In the current regime, it's precisely the billions of people who are affected by data breaches (and who happen to be taxpayers!) who are footing the bill.
	▲	folkrav 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		We already are in a system where we foot most of the consequences.
	▲	matheusmoreira an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not at all. Make the guilty corporation pay for all of it.

▲

drstewart an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This. Severe harsh consequences are the best way to prevent crime.

If we also make the penalty for every crime the death penalty we'll have no more crime. Very simple solution no one has thought of.

▲

amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the government wants me to take copyright and IP laws seriously, then they need to take my personal information seriously too.