The 1.8 million in damages is not caused directly by a failure on ATT's part, but indirectly or consequently.
The theft is by a 3rd party hacker.
The theft is probably unforseeable to ATT at the time of contract formation -- as in the buyer does not notify the carrier of their intention to use their telephone as a security device to protect 1.8 million in crypto AND Negotiate suitable services, pricing and contractual terms with ATT taking this reliance into account.
Of course it's forseeable by AT&T. They already forsaw it and wrote a guide. They specifically mention adding additional authentication factors for securing financial accounts in their own guide. https://about.att.com/pages/cy... [att.com]
Cryptocurrency is absolutely superior. It's private and decentralized! It's a great way to keep The Man out of your life. All you need to do is have thousands of computers crunching numbers all over the world. And if you lose your account keys, that's okay! Your money is still there - you just can't ever access it again! Wow! And if your account is compromised and your FooCoins are stolen, that's okay! They're not gone, they're just in someone else's account - you'll never get them back, but they're out the
What happened was, the exchange the guy kept his crypto currency on utilizes SMS for two-factor-authentication.
It’s like locking your bank vault with a TSA luggage lock (which are inherently insecure by design), then being surprised when someone breaks in.
AT&T specifically has disclaimers in their TOS that inform you you’re not supposed to use their services as a means of securing access. It’s again, like suing the manufacturer of a TSA lock because your diamond got stolen from your l
" the exchange the guy kept his crypto currency on utilizes SMS for two-factor-authentication."
OK, that's one factor. How did the thief get the other? Unless all those exchanges allow full credential resets to anyone who has SMS (i.e. single factor) related to the account?
I could see it if someone stole a phone which didn't have an access lock, and also had unprotected passwords stored on it. But simply getting access to SMS???
The 1.8 million in damages is not caused directly by a failure on ATT's part, but indirectly or consequently.
The theft is by a 3rd party hacker.
The theft is probably unforseeable to ATT at the time of contract formation -- as in the buyer does not notify the carrier of their intention to use their telephone as a security device to protect 1.8 million in crypto AND Negotiate suitable services, pricing and contractual terms with ATT taking this reliance into account.
Hadley Vs. Baxendale - 1854 [legaldictionary.net]
Of course it's forseeable by AT&T. They already forsaw it and wrote a guide. They specifically mention adding additional authentication factors for securing financial accounts in their own guide. https://about.att.com/pages/cy... [att.com]
Cryptocurrency is absolutely superior. It's private and decentralized! It's a great way to keep The Man out of your life. All you need to do is have thousands of computers crunching numbers all over the world. And if you lose your account keys, that's okay! Your money is still there - you just can't ever access it again! Wow! And if your account is compromised and your FooCoins are stolen, that's okay! They're not gone, they're just in someone else's account - you'll never get them back, but they're out the
What happened was, the exchange the guy kept his crypto currency on utilizes SMS for two-factor-authentication.
It’s like locking your bank vault with a TSA luggage lock (which are inherently insecure by design), then being surprised when someone breaks in.
AT&T specifically has disclaimers in their TOS that inform you you’re not supposed to use their services as a means of securing access. It’s again, like suing the manufacturer of a TSA lock because your diamond got stolen from your l
OK, that's one factor. How did the thief get the other? Unless all those exchanges allow full credential resets to anyone who has SMS (i.e. single factor) related to the account?
I could see it if someone stole a phone which didn't have an access lock, and also had unprotected passwords stored on it. But simply getting access to SMS???