You could argue that the government agency is at fault. 1 for their breach, 2 more importantly: for mandating that personal information get handed over without an official court order which would have involved a far more stringent process with multiple parties involved.

My understanding of the situation is that no government agency actually requested data at all, just that someone impersonated a government email address and this was enough for Revolut to reply with the requested data.

The government did request the data. And since the announcement, it has requested highly sensitive data again, and to keep such data, backed by threats of violent repercussions, that businesses cease to operate or to even exist.

That's a dangerous kind of threat to be making, and to act upon. for information that should remain private let alone owned by the bank itself.

> The government did request the data.

What's your source?

That is not what the news says.

Also, you know you can easily impersonate any email? That's a flaw of the email protocol.

From the PR statement, it's unclear if a gov. agency was hacked or it was a phishing attempt, from my point of view. Both cases are still not enough, even for a greasy spoon.

If the Revolut know the agency was hacked it surely would be in their interest to say so (unless the agency hold them at "gunpoint")

It was probably an AI agent that handed it over.

Sounds like what artisans faced when suggested they better operate those machines that produce more widgets, faster, cheaper.

It isn't pointing at particular system to blame.

But if you feel like it's raining, it probably is.

There's a Greek proverb disputing the latter: they are spitting on him and he thinks it's raining.

Interestingly, an almost identical proverb exists in Polish ("him" is replaced with "swine" canonically, but it's often replaced by a person's name). It's used to suggest that someone is either too dumb or too self-assured to accept criticism. Is the intended meaning similar in Greek?

Yup, it's exactly the same.

> It isn't pointing at particular system to blame

It's hypothesising a phenomenon. I'm looking for a measure. The phenomenon is intuitively correct, but also suspiciously attractive. Sort of like the bullshit-job (or corrupt-bureaucrat) hypotheses, where every job or public official one doesn't like can be conveniently terms bullshit absent any rigour.

Such book could be distilled in simple essence:

- stay out of it for your sanity

- sell your soul, organically adapt by looking at those who make it to the top fast

So the oppression does work. It won't stop.

> ERR_UNEXPECTED_PROXY_AUTH

Like pikapod?

> But a cancer grows from a cell that a body needs in small, healthy amounts, and that turns deadly when it grows without limit until it harms, or even kills, its host

I thought a cancer grew from a defective cell that is able to divide and grow to over take the healthy ones.

I would not focus on individual cells but the ability to grow super fast, which itself is not a defect since it's important during development, but the checks on this ability can be removed by later mutations/metabolic issues

The problem is using cancer as a singular noun in this context.

>a cancer grows from a cell that a body needs in small, healthy amounts

"A" cancer does not grow from a cell, a cell is a cancer cell if it keeps dividing when it should not. The cancer cells as a collective are the disease referred to as "cancer".

If they had written

"cancer grows from cells that a body needs in small, healthy amounts, and that turns deadly when it grows without limit until it harms, or even kills, its host"

that would have made more sense to me.

Content not viewable in your region.

:(