Technology

59534 readers

3195 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

824

23andMe tells victims it's their fault that their data was breached | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Eezyville@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

277 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hope this isn't a repeated submission. Funny how they're trying to deflect blame after they tried to change the EULA post breach.

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If they really do blame this on the users

It's not that they said:

It's your fault your data leaked

What they said was (paraphrasing):

A list of compromised emails/passwords from another site leaked, and people found some of those worked on 23andme. If a DNA relative that you volunteered to share information with was one of those people, then the info you volunteered to share was compromised to a 3rd party.

Which, honestly?

Completely valid. The only way to stop this would be for 23andme to monitor these "hack lists" and notify any email that also has an account on their website.

Side note:

Any tech company can provide info if asked by the police. The good ones require a warrant first, but as data owners they can provide it without a warrant.

[–] LUHG_HANI@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not 23 and me fault at all then. Basically boils down to password reuse. All i would say is they should have provided 2fa if they didn't.

[–] 52fighters@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

All i would say is they should have provided 2fa if they didn’t.

At this point, every company not using 2FA is at fault for data hacks. Most people using the internet have logins to 100's of sites. Knowing where to do to change all your passwords is nearly impossible for a seasoned internet user.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A seasoned internet user has a password manager.

Not using one is your negligence, no one else's.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

One password to break them all, and in the dark web bind them.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The sad thing is you have to balance the costs of requiring your customer to use 2FA with the risk of losing business because of it and the risk of losing reputation because your customers got hacked and suffered loss.

The sad thing is some (actuall most) people are brain dead, you will lose business if you make them use a complicated password or MFA and it puts them in the position to make a hard call.

They took the easy route and gave the customer the option to use MfA if they wished and unfortunately a lot of people declined. Those people should not have the ability to claim damages (or vote, for that matter)

[–] QueriesQueried@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I feel like that argument could be made for some things, but inherently cannot apply to companies involved in personal, genetic, or financial information.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

The only way to stop this would be for 23andme to monitor these "hack lists"

Unfortunately, from the information that I've seen, the hack lists didn't have these credentials. HIBP is the most popular one and it's claimed that the database used for these wasn't posted publicly but was instead sold on the dark web. I'm sure there's some overlap with previous lists if people used the same passwords but the specific dataset in this case wasn't made public like others.