<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_1651239</id>
	<title>Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264444200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"The cost of a data breach <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/012510-data-breach-costs.html">increased last year to $204</a> per compromised customer record, according to the Ponemon Institute's annual study. The average total cost of a data breach rose from $6.65 million in 2008 to $6.75 million in 2009. The Ponemon Institute based its estimates on data from 45 companies that publicly acknowledged a breach of sensitive customer data last year and were willing to discuss it. In tallying the cost of a data breach, the Ponemon Institute looks at several factors, including: the cost of lost business because of an incident; legal fees; disclosure expenses related to customer contact and public response; consulting help; and remediation expenses such as technology and training."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " The cost of a data breach increased last year to $ 204 per compromised customer record , according to the Ponemon Institute 's annual study .
The average total cost of a data breach rose from $ 6.65 million in 2008 to $ 6.75 million in 2009 .
The Ponemon Institute based its estimates on data from 45 companies that publicly acknowledged a breach of sensitive customer data last year and were willing to discuss it .
In tallying the cost of a data breach , the Ponemon Institute looks at several factors , including : the cost of lost business because of an incident ; legal fees ; disclosure expenses related to customer contact and public response ; consulting help ; and remediation expenses such as technology and training .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record, according to the Ponemon Institute's annual study.
The average total cost of a data breach rose from $6.65 million in 2008 to $6.75 million in 2009.
The Ponemon Institute based its estimates on data from 45 companies that publicly acknowledged a breach of sensitive customer data last year and were willing to discuss it.
In tallying the cost of a data breach, the Ponemon Institute looks at several factors, including: the cost of lost business because of an incident; legal fees; disclosure expenses related to customer contact and public response; consulting help; and remediation expenses such as technology and training.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893996</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if insurance didn't, the visible cost of a breach (and I'm meaning the tip of the iceberg) usually consists of PHBs calling consultants in to clean up the mess and perhaps charging that off of the quarterly numbers as a cost of doing business.</p><p>If one looks at the things that are stealable by blackhats:</p><p>Employee personal info:  The employer really doesn't care.  If employees have their credit record smacked by ID thieves in 3-6 months, the employer will not be sued for it.</p><p>Trade secrets:  At first, it won't cause any problems.  Take the example of learning a secret formula that gives 50\% yield of a chemical instead of 25\%.  The competition copying that would be evident in next quarter, and the way most US companies are run, that is an eternity away.</p><p>Unreleased models of products:  If the competition is ahead because they found out what exactly an unreleased product will have, blame the R&amp;D and product design staff, perhaps threaten them with being fired and a Chinese ODM hired for future product design work.</p><p>Sales pitches for clients:  Similar.  If the competition gets the Powerpoints and the clients don't buy, blame the salespeople for not being good enough to sell the product.</p><p>Source code and build trees:  PHBs don't know, nor care about this stuff.  Plus, if someone swipes a program's source and makes an exact clone of it offshore, it is almost impossible to get caught, and even more impossible to recoup any losses.  What a PHB will do is blame the programmers for not having a product better than the clone that just popped up and threaten them with firing and moving the work to India "where people will make 10,000 lines of bug free code per person a day for 50 cents an hour."</p><p>Want to know how to get companies to actually give a shit about security?  Pass laws that give prison time.  However, since the US Supreme Court has effectively made all elected positions into places for auction by the highest bidder (foreign companies, anyone who can bring $$$ to the table) this won't be happening.</p><p>So, expect computer security to be all about covering over breaches, and not about preventing them in the first place.  If physical security were like computer security, most businesses would have a taped on poster with a picture of a safe covering an open window on their storefronts.  It used to be a challenge for blackhats to get places.  Now because of the attitude of the MBA brigade that security brings in no ROI, someone with script kiddie knowledge can probably compromise a sizable chunk of most Fortune 500 companies, assuming the compromised boxes are not someone else's turf (I've seen blackhats actually security harden their compromised machines so another group would not be able to take them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if insurance did n't , the visible cost of a breach ( and I 'm meaning the tip of the iceberg ) usually consists of PHBs calling consultants in to clean up the mess and perhaps charging that off of the quarterly numbers as a cost of doing business.If one looks at the things that are stealable by blackhats : Employee personal info : The employer really does n't care .
If employees have their credit record smacked by ID thieves in 3-6 months , the employer will not be sued for it.Trade secrets : At first , it wo n't cause any problems .
Take the example of learning a secret formula that gives 50 \ % yield of a chemical instead of 25 \ % .
The competition copying that would be evident in next quarter , and the way most US companies are run , that is an eternity away.Unreleased models of products : If the competition is ahead because they found out what exactly an unreleased product will have , blame the R&amp;D and product design staff , perhaps threaten them with being fired and a Chinese ODM hired for future product design work.Sales pitches for clients : Similar .
If the competition gets the Powerpoints and the clients do n't buy , blame the salespeople for not being good enough to sell the product.Source code and build trees : PHBs do n't know , nor care about this stuff .
Plus , if someone swipes a program 's source and makes an exact clone of it offshore , it is almost impossible to get caught , and even more impossible to recoup any losses .
What a PHB will do is blame the programmers for not having a product better than the clone that just popped up and threaten them with firing and moving the work to India " where people will make 10,000 lines of bug free code per person a day for 50 cents an hour .
" Want to know how to get companies to actually give a shit about security ?
Pass laws that give prison time .
However , since the US Supreme Court has effectively made all elected positions into places for auction by the highest bidder ( foreign companies , anyone who can bring $ $ $ to the table ) this wo n't be happening.So , expect computer security to be all about covering over breaches , and not about preventing them in the first place .
If physical security were like computer security , most businesses would have a taped on poster with a picture of a safe covering an open window on their storefronts .
It used to be a challenge for blackhats to get places .
Now because of the attitude of the MBA brigade that security brings in no ROI , someone with script kiddie knowledge can probably compromise a sizable chunk of most Fortune 500 companies , assuming the compromised boxes are not someone else 's turf ( I 've seen blackhats actually security harden their compromised machines so another group would not be able to take them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if insurance didn't, the visible cost of a breach (and I'm meaning the tip of the iceberg) usually consists of PHBs calling consultants in to clean up the mess and perhaps charging that off of the quarterly numbers as a cost of doing business.If one looks at the things that are stealable by blackhats:Employee personal info:  The employer really doesn't care.
If employees have their credit record smacked by ID thieves in 3-6 months, the employer will not be sued for it.Trade secrets:  At first, it won't cause any problems.
Take the example of learning a secret formula that gives 50\% yield of a chemical instead of 25\%.
The competition copying that would be evident in next quarter, and the way most US companies are run, that is an eternity away.Unreleased models of products:  If the competition is ahead because they found out what exactly an unreleased product will have, blame the R&amp;D and product design staff, perhaps threaten them with being fired and a Chinese ODM hired for future product design work.Sales pitches for clients:  Similar.
If the competition gets the Powerpoints and the clients don't buy, blame the salespeople for not being good enough to sell the product.Source code and build trees:  PHBs don't know, nor care about this stuff.
Plus, if someone swipes a program's source and makes an exact clone of it offshore, it is almost impossible to get caught, and even more impossible to recoup any losses.
What a PHB will do is blame the programmers for not having a product better than the clone that just popped up and threaten them with firing and moving the work to India "where people will make 10,000 lines of bug free code per person a day for 50 cents an hour.
"Want to know how to get companies to actually give a shit about security?
Pass laws that give prison time.
However, since the US Supreme Court has effectively made all elected positions into places for auction by the highest bidder (foreign companies, anyone who can bring $$$ to the table) this won't be happening.So, expect computer security to be all about covering over breaches, and not about preventing them in the first place.
If physical security were like computer security, most businesses would have a taped on poster with a picture of a safe covering an open window on their storefronts.
It used to be a challenge for blackhats to get places.
Now because of the attitude of the MBA brigade that security brings in no ROI, someone with script kiddie knowledge can probably compromise a sizable chunk of most Fortune 500 companies, assuming the compromised boxes are not someone else's turf (I've seen blackhats actually security harden their compromised machines so another group would not be able to take them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30896948</id>
	<title>The obvious solution...</title>
	<author>B Nesson</author>
	<datestamp>1264418460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is to release more records per breach.  Cost-per-record will plummet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is to release more records per breach .
Cost-per-record will plummet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is to release more records per breach.
Cost-per-record will plummet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30897258</id>
	<title>Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record</title>
	<author>djupedal</author>
	<datestamp>1264420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the current value of one individual's personal data is now estimated to be worth...wait for it...

<br>
<br>
USD$200.00
<br>
<br>
Whomever came up with the blinding revelation in Ponemon Institute's annual study didn't have to work too hard to arrive at that number. One google search and they took the rest of the day off...nice! Way to make tee time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the current value of one individual 's personal data is now estimated to be worth...wait for it.. . USD $ 200.00 Whomever came up with the blinding revelation in Ponemon Institute 's annual study did n't have to work too hard to arrive at that number .
One google search and they took the rest of the day off...nice !
Way to make tee time : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the current value of one individual's personal data is now estimated to be worth...wait for it...



USD$200.00


Whomever came up with the blinding revelation in Ponemon Institute's annual study didn't have to work too hard to arrive at that number.
One google search and they took the rest of the day off...nice!
Way to make tee time :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893882</id>
	<title>Gotta breach 'em all!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264449420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta breach 'em all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta breach 'em all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta breach 'em all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30897884</id>
	<title>Why don't they just pay that $204 directly to cust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People will be standing in line to get their data breached.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People will be standing in line to get their data breached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will be standing in line to get their data breached.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893984</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a load of crap.</p><p>The equal sign between 'insurance' and 'data breach insurance' is false. Can you find a source saying that most companies have data breach insurance? I only found 2-3 references that minor companies had launched this type of insurance in 08-09.</p><p>Saying that "there is no cost" is false. The average cost to companies is equal to the insurance premium. If this is as widespread and costly a problem as is claimed, the insurance premium would naturally be high, and the ongoing cost high. If the problem is quite rare, the insurance premium is lower. The worse the situation becomes, the greater the incentive becomes to not have insurance and protect yourself. Over time the sum cost of premiums should equal the sum cost of losses, so companies don't save money from insurance. A constant spiral where costs go up and up faster than premiums is unsustainable.</p><p>The cost of data breaches is not passed on to "not just the company's customers, but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor". Firstly, insurance vendors are able to increase the price of one insurance independently of another insurance, if claims under the first one increases but the latter stays the same (except in year 1 of offering when the surprise comes). If your quote is true, a company that offers data breach insurance should have premiums on average higher across the board than another that doesn't offer data breach insurance, which is incorrect. If data breach insurance was not profitable the insurance companies would cease offering it, as is pointed out regularly in the case of chronically ill health care patients not being able to buy life insurance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a load of crap.The equal sign between 'insurance ' and 'data breach insurance ' is false .
Can you find a source saying that most companies have data breach insurance ?
I only found 2-3 references that minor companies had launched this type of insurance in 08-09.Saying that " there is no cost " is false .
The average cost to companies is equal to the insurance premium .
If this is as widespread and costly a problem as is claimed , the insurance premium would naturally be high , and the ongoing cost high .
If the problem is quite rare , the insurance premium is lower .
The worse the situation becomes , the greater the incentive becomes to not have insurance and protect yourself .
Over time the sum cost of premiums should equal the sum cost of losses , so companies do n't save money from insurance .
A constant spiral where costs go up and up faster than premiums is unsustainable.The cost of data breaches is not passed on to " not just the company 's customers , but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor " .
Firstly , insurance vendors are able to increase the price of one insurance independently of another insurance , if claims under the first one increases but the latter stays the same ( except in year 1 of offering when the surprise comes ) .
If your quote is true , a company that offers data breach insurance should have premiums on average higher across the board than another that does n't offer data breach insurance , which is incorrect .
If data breach insurance was not profitable the insurance companies would cease offering it , as is pointed out regularly in the case of chronically ill health care patients not being able to buy life insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a load of crap.The equal sign between 'insurance' and 'data breach insurance' is false.
Can you find a source saying that most companies have data breach insurance?
I only found 2-3 references that minor companies had launched this type of insurance in 08-09.Saying that "there is no cost" is false.
The average cost to companies is equal to the insurance premium.
If this is as widespread and costly a problem as is claimed, the insurance premium would naturally be high, and the ongoing cost high.
If the problem is quite rare, the insurance premium is lower.
The worse the situation becomes, the greater the incentive becomes to not have insurance and protect yourself.
Over time the sum cost of premiums should equal the sum cost of losses, so companies don't save money from insurance.
A constant spiral where costs go up and up faster than premiums is unsustainable.The cost of data breaches is not passed on to "not just the company's customers, but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor".
Firstly, insurance vendors are able to increase the price of one insurance independently of another insurance, if claims under the first one increases but the latter stays the same (except in year 1 of offering when the surprise comes).
If your quote is true, a company that offers data breach insurance should have premiums on average higher across the board than another that doesn't offer data breach insurance, which is incorrect.
If data breach insurance was not profitable the insurance companies would cease offering it, as is pointed out regularly in the case of chronically ill health care patients not being able to buy life insurance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894934</id>
	<title>DOLL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">rules to Follow</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>rules to Follow [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rules to Follow [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894490</id>
	<title>Re:bogus numbers</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1264452120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, what kind of dumass has root's password set to 'root'?  Mine is '123456'.  I reserve 'root' for my regular user's password.  No one will ever guess THAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , what kind of dumass has root 's password set to 'root ' ?
Mine is '123456' .
I reserve 'root ' for my regular user 's password .
No one will ever guess THAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, what kind of dumass has root's password set to 'root'?
Mine is '123456'.
I reserve 'root' for my regular user's password.
No one will ever guess THAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893624</id>
	<title>Gotta catch 'em all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ponemon!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ponemon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ponemon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894042</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on probability of a breach: too much. If your chance of a breach is low (say, in the 1\% per year range), that's only $2 per account compromised, or a cost of $600k per year. And great security only reduces the chance - it does not eliminate it.</p><p>There's also the lion attack argument: you only have to run faster than the slowest person being chased. Now, in this case, that might be the bottom 10\%, but the goal is to be just enough better than the softest targets that you are unlikely to get hit. If you avoid the casual crackers and the working mafia, the only thing left to worry about is the one goof who is going to target \_your\_ system specifically. Since there is no perfect security system, you can ignore that last threat - it will hit you no matter how much you spend. You just have to be tight enough to make it unprofitable (or less profitable than other systems).</p><p>Business Managers already know this. They also know that - provided all hell doesn't break loose - people have very short memories. A minor "oops" every once in a while isn't a big deal, financially speaking. Call it the cost of doing business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on probability of a breach : too much .
If your chance of a breach is low ( say , in the 1 \ % per year range ) , that 's only $ 2 per account compromised , or a cost of $ 600k per year .
And great security only reduces the chance - it does not eliminate it.There 's also the lion attack argument : you only have to run faster than the slowest person being chased .
Now , in this case , that might be the bottom 10 \ % , but the goal is to be just enough better than the softest targets that you are unlikely to get hit .
If you avoid the casual crackers and the working mafia , the only thing left to worry about is the one goof who is going to target \ _your \ _ system specifically .
Since there is no perfect security system , you can ignore that last threat - it will hit you no matter how much you spend .
You just have to be tight enough to make it unprofitable ( or less profitable than other systems ) .Business Managers already know this .
They also know that - provided all hell does n't break loose - people have very short memories .
A minor " oops " every once in a while is n't a big deal , financially speaking .
Call it the cost of doing business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on probability of a breach: too much.
If your chance of a breach is low (say, in the 1\% per year range), that's only $2 per account compromised, or a cost of $600k per year.
And great security only reduces the chance - it does not eliminate it.There's also the lion attack argument: you only have to run faster than the slowest person being chased.
Now, in this case, that might be the bottom 10\%, but the goal is to be just enough better than the softest targets that you are unlikely to get hit.
If you avoid the casual crackers and the working mafia, the only thing left to worry about is the one goof who is going to target \_your\_ system specifically.
Since there is no perfect security system, you can ignore that last threat - it will hit you no matter how much you spend.
You just have to be tight enough to make it unprofitable (or less profitable than other systems).Business Managers already know this.
They also know that - provided all hell doesn't break loose - people have very short memories.
A minor "oops" every once in a while isn't a big deal, financially speaking.
Call it the cost of doing business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894140</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less than the encryption solution we've been lusting for.  Most of the notification laws are written such that if you've encrypted you don't have to tell anyone about the breach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than the encryption solution we 've been lusting for .
Most of the notification laws are written such that if you 've encrypted you do n't have to tell anyone about the breach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than the encryption solution we've been lusting for.
Most of the notification laws are written such that if you've encrypted you don't have to tell anyone about the breach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30899392</id>
	<title>Pain in the rear.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record"</p><p>I can just image Vaseline cost are a big part of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Data Breach Costs Top $ 200 Per Customer Record " I can just image Vaseline cost are a big part of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record"I can just image Vaseline cost are a big part of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30896248</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1264415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Another related question:  how much does it cost the average individual whose data has been compromised?  That would allow us to tell if the $200 cost is out of line with the results.
</p><p>
It's not going to be easy to determine, of course.  Probably most people don't suffer significantly from a compromise, but some people lose a lot of money, have to spend a lot of personal time trying to clean things up, and suffer great stress, which isn't going to be easy to monetize.  Moreover, not everybody who loses money or is denied credit because of a data breach is going to know why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another related question : how much does it cost the average individual whose data has been compromised ?
That would allow us to tell if the $ 200 cost is out of line with the results .
It 's not going to be easy to determine , of course .
Probably most people do n't suffer significantly from a compromise , but some people lose a lot of money , have to spend a lot of personal time trying to clean things up , and suffer great stress , which is n't going to be easy to monetize .
Moreover , not everybody who loses money or is denied credit because of a data breach is going to know why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Another related question:  how much does it cost the average individual whose data has been compromised?
That would allow us to tell if the $200 cost is out of line with the results.
It's not going to be easy to determine, of course.
Probably most people don't suffer significantly from a compromise, but some people lose a lot of money, have to spend a lot of personal time trying to clean things up, and suffer great stress, which isn't going to be easy to monetize.
Moreover, not everybody who loses money or is denied credit because of a data breach is going to know why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30905244</id>
	<title>what about costs to customers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264524780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a feeling that the averaged cost might be used to justify lax standards unfortunately, but for the few that are badly affected with ruined credit the costs will be much higher, certainly higher than "the cost of doing business."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that the averaged cost might be used to justify lax standards unfortunately , but for the few that are badly affected with ruined credit the costs will be much higher , certainly higher than " the cost of doing business .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that the averaged cost might be used to justify lax standards unfortunately, but for the few that are badly affected with ruined credit the costs will be much higher, certainly higher than "the cost of doing business.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893870</id>
	<title>et7p..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264449360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a needF t0 play</htmltext>
<tokenext>a needF t0 play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a needF t0 play</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670</id>
	<title>$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...</p></div><p>Insurance covers most companies. Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business. The only thing a business is concerned about is revealing the breach to the public because it could harm its reputation. Everything else can be mopped up in the insurance and legal departments. The costs of a data breach are thus passed on in aggregate to not just the company's customers, but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor. And given the lack of diversity in the insurance market (ie, most of the market is controlled by only a few businesses) -- more than likely, that's a <i>lot</i> of businesses.</p><p>And that's how businesses manage risk -- and pass the costs on to you. And the problem will therefore never go away, because it's been put inside an SEP Field (Somebody Else's Problem), the most powerful repulsive force in the universe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $ 204 per compromised customer record...Insurance covers most companies .
Because of this , it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business .
The only thing a business is concerned about is revealing the breach to the public because it could harm its reputation .
Everything else can be mopped up in the insurance and legal departments .
The costs of a data breach are thus passed on in aggregate to not just the company 's customers , but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor .
And given the lack of diversity in the insurance market ( ie , most of the market is controlled by only a few businesses ) -- more than likely , that 's a lot of businesses.And that 's how businesses manage risk -- and pass the costs on to you .
And the problem will therefore never go away , because it 's been put inside an SEP Field ( Somebody Else 's Problem ) , the most powerful repulsive force in the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...Insurance covers most companies.
Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business.
The only thing a business is concerned about is revealing the breach to the public because it could harm its reputation.
Everything else can be mopped up in the insurance and legal departments.
The costs of a data breach are thus passed on in aggregate to not just the company's customers, but to every business that purchases insurance from that insurance vendor.
And given the lack of diversity in the insurance market (ie, most of the market is controlled by only a few businesses) -- more than likely, that's a lot of businesses.And that's how businesses manage risk -- and pass the costs on to you.
And the problem will therefore never go away, because it's been put inside an SEP Field (Somebody Else's Problem), the most powerful repulsive force in the universe.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893838</id>
	<title>1\% Rise in Data Breach Costs per Customer Record</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1264449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says the costs increased by $2 since 2008.  So the headline is actually referring to something that happened back before 2008.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says the costs increased by $ 2 since 2008 .
So the headline is actually referring to something that happened back before 2008 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says the costs increased by $2 since 2008.
So the headline is actually referring to something that happened back before 2008.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893636</id>
	<title>"The Ponemon Institute"</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1264448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a second there I thought I'd read "The Pokemon Institute"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a second there I thought I 'd read " The Pokemon Institute " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a second there I thought I'd read "The Pokemon Institute" :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30897026</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264418880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would change their tune if they also had to pay all the <b>customer</b> costs of a data breach, which arguably they should be compelled to do.
<br> <br>
The cost to a single customer from a data breach could easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars. I bet that would wake these people up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would change their tune if they also had to pay all the customer costs of a data breach , which arguably they should be compelled to do .
The cost to a single customer from a data breach could easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars .
I bet that would wake these people up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would change their tune if they also had to pay all the customer costs of a data breach, which arguably they should be compelled to do.
The cost to a single customer from a data breach could easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
I bet that would wake these people up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894498</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1264452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.</p><p>Seemed applicable</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph .
The rear differential locks up .
The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside .
Now , should we initiate a recall ?
Take the number of vehicles in the field , A , multiply by the probable rate of failure , B , multiply by the average out-of-court settlement , C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall , we do n't do one.Seemed applicable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph.
The rear differential locks up.
The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside.
Now, should we initiate a recall?
Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.Seemed applicable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894026</id>
	<title>Want more details</title>
	<author>edrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1264450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>before I believe this. How does one spend that much per record?
A bit more detail would be nice...</htmltext>
<tokenext>before I believe this .
How does one spend that much per record ?
A bit more detail would be nice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before I believe this.
How does one spend that much per record?
A bit more detail would be nice...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894412</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1264451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I checked into the savings I'd get on my house insurance if I got a house alarm.  IIRC, it was about $30/year (~10\% at the time).  Cost of monitoring?  $20+/month.  So, basically, the savings on my house insurance are about 6 weeks of monitoring.  I still have to fund the other 46 weeks.</p><p>So the question a business will ask is whether the cost of securing their data is more or less than the loss of insecure data, insurance rates included.  I'm betting the cost of securing data will be far, far more than any insurance savings they see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked into the savings I 'd get on my house insurance if I got a house alarm .
IIRC , it was about $ 30/year ( ~ 10 \ % at the time ) .
Cost of monitoring ?
$ 20 + /month. So , basically , the savings on my house insurance are about 6 weeks of monitoring .
I still have to fund the other 46 weeks.So the question a business will ask is whether the cost of securing their data is more or less than the loss of insecure data , insurance rates included .
I 'm betting the cost of securing data will be far , far more than any insurance savings they see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked into the savings I'd get on my house insurance if I got a house alarm.
IIRC, it was about $30/year (~10\% at the time).
Cost of monitoring?
$20+/month.  So, basically, the savings on my house insurance are about 6 weeks of monitoring.
I still have to fund the other 46 weeks.So the question a business will ask is whether the cost of securing their data is more or less than the loss of insecure data, insurance rates included.
I'm betting the cost of securing data will be far, far more than any insurance savings they see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30898232</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1264424820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing in this world is free. There is a cost for everything. The good thing is that we found the cost of privacy breaches. The next step is to compare them to the cost of increasing current security. If it is found that the marginal benefit of having less breaches offsets the marginal cost of increasing security, then action should be taken to follow that course of action until we reach equilibrium.<br>
Privacy costs money. It is not a value that should be pursued no matter the cost; rather, the costs should be weighed with the benefits, and a rational decision must be made based on the information available.<br>
Second: one person buying an insurance policy from a company doesn't raise the premiums for everyone else; if anything, the premiums go down as the overhead fixed costs are spread between more clients. The cost of the insurance policy is determined statistically to cover the cost of the policy.<br>
This is elementary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing in this world is free .
There is a cost for everything .
The good thing is that we found the cost of privacy breaches .
The next step is to compare them to the cost of increasing current security .
If it is found that the marginal benefit of having less breaches offsets the marginal cost of increasing security , then action should be taken to follow that course of action until we reach equilibrium .
Privacy costs money .
It is not a value that should be pursued no matter the cost ; rather , the costs should be weighed with the benefits , and a rational decision must be made based on the information available .
Second : one person buying an insurance policy from a company does n't raise the premiums for everyone else ; if anything , the premiums go down as the overhead fixed costs are spread between more clients .
The cost of the insurance policy is determined statistically to cover the cost of the policy .
This is elementary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing in this world is free.
There is a cost for everything.
The good thing is that we found the cost of privacy breaches.
The next step is to compare them to the cost of increasing current security.
If it is found that the marginal benefit of having less breaches offsets the marginal cost of increasing security, then action should be taken to follow that course of action until we reach equilibrium.
Privacy costs money.
It is not a value that should be pursued no matter the cost; rather, the costs should be weighed with the benefits, and a rational decision must be made based on the information available.
Second: one person buying an insurance policy from a company doesn't raise the premiums for everyone else; if anything, the premiums go down as the overhead fixed costs are spread between more clients.
The cost of the insurance policy is determined statistically to cover the cost of the policy.
This is elementary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756</id>
	<title>Who the heck is 'Top'???</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1264448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record </b></p><p>My first reading of the headline left me wondering what company was named 'Top' and when was their data breach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data Breach Costs Top $ 200 Per Customer Record My first reading of the headline left me wondering what company was named 'Top ' and when was their data breach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data Breach Costs Top $200 Per Customer Record My first reading of the headline left me wondering what company was named 'Top' and when was their data breach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894056</id>
	<title>Re:Who the heck is 'Top'???</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Confusing, are some verbs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Confusing , are some verbs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confusing, are some verbs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893736</id>
	<title>bogus numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of companies hide the fact that they are breached (constantly, in many cases). It costs them very little to just rebuild the hacked server, smack the admin who set root's password to 'root', and then pretend nothing happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of companies hide the fact that they are breached ( constantly , in many cases ) .
It costs them very little to just rebuild the hacked server , smack the admin who set root 's password to 'root ' , and then pretend nothing happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of companies hide the fact that they are breached (constantly, in many cases).
It costs them very little to just rebuild the hacked server, smack the admin who set root's password to 'root', and then pretend nothing happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A related question is: how much does it cost to prevent. Managers will ask.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A related question is : how much does it cost to prevent .
Managers will ask .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A related question is: how much does it cost to prevent.
Managers will ask.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894316</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1264451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.</p></div><p>One of my wife's friends, an insurance underwriter, once explained that underwriters are experts on applied statistics.  They are like an experimentalist scientist whom doesn't know anything about the subject but is an expert at making predictions based on correlation coefficients and regression analysis.  Maybe she was oversimplifying or drunk, whatever, thats just what I heard.</p><p>The relevance to the story is, that no insurance underwriter can provide an honest intelligent evaluation of data breach costs, much less specialize the market into those whom spend more or less on security, or those whom use certain OS and apps vs others.  Its just a bunch of anecdotes, not real statistics.  Any goof can take a sum, and divide it by a quantity, but that doesn't imply it means anything.</p><p>Now, marketing might try to spin it as they're experienced enough to do it, when they are actually not.  Sales may use it as a negotiating tactic, they are not cutting the price by $100K because they're caving in, but because the client uses linux or whatever face saving claim they can make.  Or the opposite, they were going to raise premiums by $100K anyway, but thankfully the fools had a breech, now we can blame the increase on the breech.</p><p>Also most businesses self insure anyway.  The little ones are too fly by night and poor to afford insurance and are judgment proof anyway, and the big ones take risks that are bigger than the insurers themselves and have large enough legal and lobbying departments to be above the law.  So the only companies affected are vaguely medium sized.  Think, like a small restaurant chain sized company, maybe a single plant manufacturing company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit .
That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk .
That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable , even if nobody hacks their system .
SO , if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does , it is at a competitive disadvantage.One of my wife 's friends , an insurance underwriter , once explained that underwriters are experts on applied statistics .
They are like an experimentalist scientist whom does n't know anything about the subject but is an expert at making predictions based on correlation coefficients and regression analysis .
Maybe she was oversimplifying or drunk , whatever , thats just what I heard.The relevance to the story is , that no insurance underwriter can provide an honest intelligent evaluation of data breach costs , much less specialize the market into those whom spend more or less on security , or those whom use certain OS and apps vs others .
Its just a bunch of anecdotes , not real statistics .
Any goof can take a sum , and divide it by a quantity , but that does n't imply it means anything.Now , marketing might try to spin it as they 're experienced enough to do it , when they are actually not .
Sales may use it as a negotiating tactic , they are not cutting the price by $ 100K because they 're caving in , but because the client uses linux or whatever face saving claim they can make .
Or the opposite , they were going to raise premiums by $ 100K anyway , but thankfully the fools had a breech , now we can blame the increase on the breech.Also most businesses self insure anyway .
The little ones are too fly by night and poor to afford insurance and are judgment proof anyway , and the big ones take risks that are bigger than the insurers themselves and have large enough legal and lobbying departments to be above the law .
So the only companies affected are vaguely medium sized .
Think , like a small restaurant chain sized company , maybe a single plant manufacturing company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit.
That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk.
That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system.
SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.One of my wife's friends, an insurance underwriter, once explained that underwriters are experts on applied statistics.
They are like an experimentalist scientist whom doesn't know anything about the subject but is an expert at making predictions based on correlation coefficients and regression analysis.
Maybe she was oversimplifying or drunk, whatever, thats just what I heard.The relevance to the story is, that no insurance underwriter can provide an honest intelligent evaluation of data breach costs, much less specialize the market into those whom spend more or less on security, or those whom use certain OS and apps vs others.
Its just a bunch of anecdotes, not real statistics.
Any goof can take a sum, and divide it by a quantity, but that doesn't imply it means anything.Now, marketing might try to spin it as they're experienced enough to do it, when they are actually not.
Sales may use it as a negotiating tactic, they are not cutting the price by $100K because they're caving in, but because the client uses linux or whatever face saving claim they can make.
Or the opposite, they were going to raise premiums by $100K anyway, but thankfully the fools had a breech, now we can blame the increase on the breech.Also most businesses self insure anyway.
The little ones are too fly by night and poor to afford insurance and are judgment proof anyway, and the big ones take risks that are bigger than the insurers themselves and have large enough legal and lobbying departments to be above the law.
So the only companies affected are vaguely medium sized.
Think, like a small restaurant chain sized company, maybe a single plant manufacturing company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734</id>
	<title>Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter.</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...</p></div><p>Insurance covers most companies. Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $ 204 per compromised customer record...Insurance covers most companies .
Because of this , it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business .
.The thing is , the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit .
That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk .
That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable , even if nobody hacks their system .
SO , if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does , it is at a competitive disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...Insurance covers most companies.
Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business.
.The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit.
That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk.
That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system.
SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893684</id>
	<title>why</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1264448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why doe sit cost are they buying it back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why doe sit cost are they buying it back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why doe sit cost are they buying it back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894288</id>
	<title>Re:Who the heck is 'Top'???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264451280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't refer to one company, but to many. Top is being used to mean "over" and should be "tops." The title might be more clearly read as "data breaches now cost over $200 per customer."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't refer to one company , but to many .
Top is being used to mean " over " and should be " tops .
" The title might be more clearly read as " data breaches now cost over $ 200 per customer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't refer to one company, but to many.
Top is being used to mean "over" and should be "tops.
" The title might be more clearly read as "data breaches now cost over $200 per customer.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30898232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30897026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30896248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1651239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30898232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30896248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30897026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1651239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30893736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1651239.30894490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
