It's time to publicly shame United Airlines' so-called online security
It&#x27;s entirely their prerogative as to whether or not they provide a decent level of security, and it&#x27;s entirely up to consumers to choose whether or not to work with them.<p>The vast majority of people do not know what 2fa is, and sure as hell don&#x27;t care to know, so the only people irked by their misleading messaging are IT professionals, who, again, can fly with someone else.<p>Essentially, there is clearly no incentive for them to improve their security unless it hurts their bottom line - and there&#x27;s no point from their perspective in investing in something which makes no money.<p>Of course, if they have a major hack there will be some brief PR damage (none of the high profile hacks of major companies seem to have inflicted <i>any</i> reputational damage - instead the public blame the &quot;terrorist hackers&quot; the media parade), and their insurers will cover any direct losses, including those as a result of a class action, which they&#x27;re probably indemnified against anyway.<p>In short, they have no reason to change, so probably won&#x27;t. If anything, they&#x27;ll be upheld as the golden standard, because legislators will buy into their PR, not being in any way technical themselves. Perception is reality.