Somehow this thread of mine got larger than I imagined.
I don't think I've lost my touch on reality. Details? Maybe. I'm also not proposing that Dropbox didn't do something stupid.
But why would you sue? Because someone told you that your data ~could've~ been potentially accessed? I'm not against calling a lawyer in general. But these kinds of (class action) cases regularly look like [Note: Still firmly anchored in reality here. Maybe just in a different culture..] witch hunts to me personally. Like angry/annoyed mobs.
Again: Note that I don't say "these people have no right to sue" nor "the people in this particular case are equivalent to a medieval party of farmers with torches and improvised weapons". This whole thread is mostly "Why oh why?" and less "You're doing it wrong".
In the end I really like edw's comment further down in this thread:
"I think there's no question that Dropbox seriously dropped the ball, but as programmers we should be extremely concerned about the prospect of companies being held liable not just for actual damages but theoretically possible and potentially non-economic yet non-existent damages."
we should be extremely concerned about the prospect of companies being held liable not just for actual damages but theoretically possible and potentially non-economic yet non-existent damages
Well, perhaps if they are held liable for unreasonable sums, and that decision survives appeal, I'll be concerned. But nobody has held anything yet. The issue has gone to court.
Witch hunt? Angry mob? The issue is in court. That is the complete opposite of an angry mob.
How, exactly, are people supposed to seek redress if they have signed a contract with Dropbox, the contract was breached, and they were dissatisfied with the response? If they shouldn't go to court and file suit, what should they do? Bribe the czar's ministers? Recruit their relatives and start an old-fashioned Kentucky feud, complete with snipers and ambushes? Start an astroturf campaign of character assassination on Twitter?
And, again, this isn't some patent troll seeking a quick settlement.
Sometimes they are witch hunts (or maybe "money grabs" is a better term). But there are also many instances where they have effected real change for the better.
A potential settlement in this Dropbox case could be: Dropbox pays off the lawyers (of course) but also agrees to hire a Chief Security Officer and submit to quarterly security audits by an outside company for the next year.
In the absence of a strong government consumer protection bureau, the class action lawsuit is one of the primary ways Americans force corporations to take responsibility for their actions.
I don't think I've lost my touch on reality. Details? Maybe. I'm also not proposing that Dropbox didn't do something stupid.
But why would you sue? Because someone told you that your data ~could've~ been potentially accessed? I'm not against calling a lawyer in general. But these kinds of (class action) cases regularly look like [Note: Still firmly anchored in reality here. Maybe just in a different culture..] witch hunts to me personally. Like angry/annoyed mobs.
Again: Note that I don't say "these people have no right to sue" nor "the people in this particular case are equivalent to a medieval party of farmers with torches and improvised weapons". This whole thread is mostly "Why oh why?" and less "You're doing it wrong".
In the end I really like edw's comment further down in this thread:
"I think there's no question that Dropbox seriously dropped the ball, but as programmers we should be extremely concerned about the prospect of companies being held liable not just for actual damages but theoretically possible and potentially non-economic yet non-existent damages."