QANTAS Cyber Incident

[RooFlyer]

Like I said, you’re obsessed with Qantas in thinking they are a special case

It is a special case - the data theft happened to Qantas, and many people' here had their personal information taken; we are discussing it; you, me and many others (maybe we are all obsessed?). Its not MGM Grand, or any of the other red herrings brought up; its the 'national flag carrier' and the hack affected millions of Australians. I reckon its worthy of a close look.

One might accuse me of being obsessed with QR, but never with Qantas - I leave that to others.

Your original statement was quite clearly saying QF would try to hide it.

No, it didn't say that. I suggest we give it a rest.

Qantas probably couldn't hide it entirely, but they could give it a red-hot go.

 

[justinbrett]

It is a special case - the data theft happened to Qantas, and many people' here had their personal information taken; we are discussing it; you, me and many others (maybe we are all obsessed?). Its not MGM Grand, or any of the other red herrings brought up; its the 'national flag carrier' and the hack affected millions of Australians. I reckon its worthy of a close look.

One might accuse me of being obsessed with QR, but never with Qantas - I leave that to others.



No, it didn't say that. Lets give it a rest, eh?

Taking the QF hack outside of the context of other hacks by the same perpetrators is not helpful. The context sheds light on precedence and how we can expect this to unfold.

At least have some credit and own up to your past statements.

“A red hot go” = try
Try what? = hide it

Obsessed with QF doesn’t mean you’re pro QF. Can be quite the opposite. It includes the habit of bringing up QF in just about every forum outside of the QF forum, which you excel at. Never miss the opportunity to sledge QF.

 

[RooFlyer]

“A red hot go” = try
Try what? = hide it

Please stop selective quoting me. The word I used was could. The word you imposed on it (and conveniently omitted above) was would. Completely different meaning.

If what I post irritates you so much, I suggest you simply block me.

 

[justinbrett]

Please stop selective quoting me. The word I used was could. The word you imposed on it (and conveniently omitted above) was would. Completely different meaning.

If what I post irritates you so much, I suggest you simply block me.

Qantas could do any number of things, legal or illegal. the fact you mention it implies you think it merits discussion, and at least a remote chance that they would - otherwise, why bring it up? In the post before that one you even speculated that QF may have already paid the hackers. I sense you are backpedaling hard but anyway, other users can make up their own minds.

 

[DejaBrew]

 

[LionKing]

Another month, another potential data breach.
So I wonder how much are we expecting Qantas to lose over this, and also how many status credits and points they need to gift again to compensate for the loss of customers privacy?

 

[DejaBrew]

So I wonder how much are we expecting Qantas to lose over this, and also how many status credits and points they need to gift again to compensate for the loss of customers privacy?

Suspect if we were going to see anything on that front then it would have already happened by now.

 

[LionKing]

Suspect if we were going to see anything on that front then it would have already happened by now.

If I am the shareholder, I would have been worried that company would need to make fair a bit of provision for potential lawsuits.
I would rather have less points and SCs from that front than to receive a number of scam calls because my data is leaked.

 

[dairyfloss]

Another month, another potential data breach.
So I wonder how much are we expecting Qantas to lose over this, and also how many status credits and points they need to gift again to compensate for the loss of customers privacy?

It's not a new one - it's the same one from July. It's just back in the news with some update around the hackers pushing their many victims (of which QF is one) for cash