Privacy settings

We use a number of cookies on our website. Some are essential, while others help us improve our portal for you.

Privacy settings

Here is an overview of all the cookies we use. You can choose to accept whole categories or view more information and select only certain cookies.

Essential (6)

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the website to function properly.

Statistics (3)

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.
If the statistics cookies are subsequently deselected, they will remain on the computer until the expiry date. However, they are neither updated nor evaluated.

Online Casinos in general: Hacker attack on Merkur Bets (Page 6)

Topic created on 14th Mar. 2025 | Page: 6 of 6 | Answers: 78 | Views: 5,777
Supergreg
Visitor

Hacker attack on Merkur Bets

15th Mar. 2025, at 06:05 pm CET#76
1 Like

Liked this post: Avatar von frapi07 frapi07

frapi07 wrote on March 15, 2025 at 5:48 pm:

The controller/processor is responsible for the circumstance. The data had zero protection. They were publicly accessible. The controller/processor therefore accepted that this data would be stolen and/or misused. You can't talk your way out of this.

Yes, this is the exclusion of liability under Art. 82 para. 3 GDPR. Companies can theoretically exonerate themselves if they can prove that they are not responsible for the breach.


But why does this not apply here?


  • The data was leaked through their systems, so they had a security vulnerability.

  • They would have to prove that they did everything technically possible to prevent the attack - they did not.

  • Even if hackers stole the data, the question remains: why was this even possible?





  • The GDPR requires an appropriate level of protection. Apparently, there were vulnerabilities that hackers were able to exploit.

  • Whether they are "to blame" or not is of secondary importance. The damage to you has already been done, and the GDPR protects data subjects, not just those technically responsible.



    • This post has been translated automatically

    Rainmann
    Elite

    Hacker attack on Merkur Bets

    15th Mar. 2025, at 06:54 pm CET#77
    0 Likes

    Nobody has liked this post so far
    Supergreg wrote on 15.03.2025 18:05:

    Yes, this is the exclusion of liability according to Art. 82 para. 3 GDPR. Companies can theoretically exonerate themselves if they can prove that they are not responsible for the breach.


    But why does this not apply here?


    • The data was leaked through their systems, so they had a security vulnerability.

    • They would have to prove that they did everything technically possible to prevent the attack - they did not.

    • Even if hackers stole the data, the question remains: why was this even possible?





  • The GDPR requires an appropriate level of protection. Apparently, there were vulnerabilities that hackers were able to exploit.

  • Whether they are "to blame" or not is of secondary importance. The damage to you has already been done, and the GDPR protects data subjects, not just those technically responsible.




    • Thank you, wrote an email. Funnily enough, the store is now back to maintenance work

    This post has been translated automatically

    slotliebe89
    Elite

    Hacker attack on Merkur Bets

    15th Mar. 2025, at 07:12 pm CET#78
    0 Likes

    Nobody has liked this post so far

    Rainmann wrote on 15.03.2025 at 18:54:
    Thanks, wrote an email. Strangely enough, maintenance work at the store again now

    What did you write?

    This post has been translated automatically

    Benno444
    Visitor

    Hacker attack on Merkur Bets

    15th Mar. 2025, at 08:26 pm CET#79
    0 Likes

    Nobody has liked this post so far

    GambleMike wrote on 15.03.2025 at 16:09:

    Since the BGH decision in the Facebook case from November 2024, it has been clarified that the "mere and temporary loss of control over one's own personal data" is sufficient for damage. In this case, the data was published unintentionally. They were publicly accessible to anyone, as Lilith Wittmann describes, who actually accessed them to a minimum extent. Is it difficult to deny damage under these conditions?

    Trust is a good keyword: but I'm not clear about the connection between trust in Protectra and legal expenses Insurance? Have you misunderstood the business model of such legal service providers?
    I don't understand what you mean by the Streisand effect in this context?

    Well, that's right. The Streisand effect doesn't really fit. I just meant that it might not be so smart to enter into a contract with a shyster even though you haven't suffered any damage. Maybe this creates a problem in the first place, even though there really isn't one if you just leave it at that.


    Protectra tries to get something out of it and if it works, then they pocket part of it. If not, they don't. They say I won't incur any costs, but is that really the case? If I assign the case, then I can't do anything myself, can I? What happens if I demand or have already demanded the deletion of data or something else that Protecta doesn't like and I may have ruined their business as a result? Am I then possibly in breach of Protectra's GTCS? Will there still be any costs afterwards? Or any phone calls, appointments and correspondence with anyone? I have no idea. As I said, I don't know the company and have never had anything like this to do with it. Maybe it's a good thing.

    Someone here wanted to go through their lawyer and then report back. Maybe wait and see what he says?

    This post has been translated automatically

    Hot Topics16th Mar. 2025 at 03:15 am CET

    Offline Casinos
    0
    Bonus
    0
    Bonus
    0

    GambleJoe Team

    Profile picture of JulianJulian
    Community-Manager / Complaint Specialist    Profile picture of CounterCounter
    Software developer    Profile picture of MatthiasMatthias
    Project manager
    Profile picture of DanielDaniel
    Founder

    Community Forum-Moderators

    Members who assist the GJ team in moderating the forum.
    Profile picture of AndreAndre
    Profile picture of gamble1gamble1
    Profile picture of Langhans_innenLanghans_innen
    Profile picture of SaphiraSaphira
    GambleJoe is aimed exclusively at user whose allowed to play legally with his current location in online casinos and does not violate the current law.
    It is the responsibility of the user to inform himself about the current legal situation. Gambling is prohibited for children and adolescents under the age of 18.
    GambleJoe is a registered trademark with the EUIPO of GJ International Ltd.
    © 2012-2025 GambleJoe.com
    ✕

    Forgotten your password?

    Create a new password here

    • 1. Fill in the 3 fields carefully and click on the green button
    • 2. Check your email inbox for a message from GambleJoe
    • 3. Click on the confirmation link in the email and your new password will be active immediately