Our government is great. Where else can you go back 7 years to an event, change the circumstances, and then sue!?!? Wyndham is a good company and my guess is that they didn’t want to get hacked. Our government should be helping companies against these foreign hackers and not further crippling or distracting victim companies.
Why should government be subsidizing a private company’s security? That’s idiotic. If they do there should be massive, massive taxes on the companies to cover the cost.
I 100% agree with Wyndham’s argument. This is egregious overreach by the FTC and should not be allowed at all. It’s insane frankly, and yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FTC one day attempted to regulate door locks or consumer safety at supermarkets. You give this administration an inch, they take 100 miles and give Americans the middle finger all the way through.
Your tax dollars at work. The government can’t secure their own data but will collect fines from others. Wyndham should call Hillary, She knows how to beat the system.
Having had my credit card used multiple times in Mexico while I was sitting in Illinois, I know first hand how much having your information stolen sucks.
I do agree that companies should have better safeguards to protect their customers’ information. And it might even be good to implement some sort of regulation requiring companies that deal with large amounts of financial and personal data to maintain specific levels of cyber security. However, as far as I know, nothing like that exists, now. And it seems like bit a stretch for the FTC to claim that Wyndham’s (apparently?) lax cyber security practices amount to “unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
Well, that settles it! Problem Solved! Next…
Our government is great. Where else can you go back 7 years to an event, change the circumstances, and then sue!?!? Wyndham is a good company and my guess is that they didn’t want to get hacked. Our government should be helping companies against these foreign hackers and not further crippling or distracting victim companies.
Why should government be subsidizing a private company’s security? That’s idiotic. If they do there should be massive, massive taxes on the companies to cover the cost.
What about all the government files that got hacked??? Who will be held accountable for those incidents??
As the golf commercial says, “Don’t count that”.
I 100% agree with Wyndham’s argument. This is egregious overreach by the FTC and should not be allowed at all. It’s insane frankly, and yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FTC one day attempted to regulate door locks or consumer safety at supermarkets. You give this administration an inch, they take 100 miles and give Americans the middle finger all the way through.
Your tax dollars at work. The government can’t secure their own data but will collect fines from others. Wyndham should call Hillary, She knows how to beat the system.
Having had my credit card used multiple times in Mexico while I was sitting in Illinois, I know first hand how much having your information stolen sucks.
I do agree that companies should have better safeguards to protect their customers’ information. And it might even be good to implement some sort of regulation requiring companies that deal with large amounts of financial and personal data to maintain specific levels of cyber security. However, as far as I know, nothing like that exists, now. And it seems like bit a stretch for the FTC to claim that Wyndham’s (apparently?) lax cyber security practices amount to “unfair and deceptive trade practices.”