Talk:PNI Digital Media

Financial and legal implications of PNI's security breach
Several editors have sought to add information about the financial and legal implications of the security breach that occurred within PNI's servers, attempting to connect the event to a fall in Staples' stock price. The cited source (this article) does not mention Staples' stock price at all, and it certainly make no attempt to tie security breach to any change in Staples' market value. The statement:
 * It is unclear whether this acquisition means Staples or PNI are liable for compensation claims by retailers and any customers due to the two weeks of downtime, or whether PNI is technically a legally separate entity and hence provides a liability firewall for Staples

(sourced to this press release) is equally untenable, as the cited source makes no mention of the liability of Staples regarding this event, and appears to be an attempt to introduce original research regarding the nature of Staples' liability in this affair. The addition goes on to mention that Staples has been reluctant to discuss the matter, citing this source whose only mention of Staples is a quote from their vice president of global communications, who says, "We take the protection of information very seriously. PNI is investigating a potential credit card data issue, and outside security experts are assisting in the investigation." That doesn't seem reluctant to me, and to claim that Staples has been reluctant based on that article is quite a stretch.

The addition goes on to state that "multiple news agencies reported PNI were uncontactable", citing this article which does indicated that GeekWire's multiple attempts to contact PNI were unsuccessful. However, this may reflect more on GeekWire's status as a news outlet than on any reluctance on PNI's part to avoid media scrutiny.

The point is that this entire section appears to be an attempt to smear the reputation of Staples and PNI based on the flimsiest of sources. Wikipedia's standards require stronger sources for such negative information.

I invite, and  (and, of course, any other interested editors) to join this discussion before restoring the controversial material. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While stock price fluctuations of course can have multiple causes, several of the sources state that PNI could not be reached for comment: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/18/cvs_photo_hack/, http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/07/cvs-probes-card-breach-at-online-photo-unit/.

So, it certainly is not only Geekwire that has unsuccessfully tried to contact PNI. The multiple sources should be mentioned, and at least that part should go back into the article. jfeise (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is common practice for companies to distance themselves from media while sorting out a data breach. Good practice? That's debatable, but certainly common enough that that single fact should not be held against them. If it arises that there was some complicity in PNI's activities that eventually is reported in the press, that would be significant. Media silence during a crisis does not really merit mention. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be re added to the article as I think it's important to the article A8v (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It may have been common practice a couple of years back, but nowadays it isn't. PNI falling back to that outdated reaction of media silence is newsworthy. jfeise (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's newsworthy, maybe it's not. That's a matter of interpretation. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper: newsworthiness is not the criterion we're looking for here. The question is whether it is fair and neutral to bring this point into the permanent encyclopedic record of the company. I believe not. No evidence of any wrongdoing on PNI's part has been produced, and until such evidence is produced, and discussed in reliable sources, no attempt should me made here to imply wrongdoing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)