[Warning: imperfect analogy follows.] It's one thing if Linode is like someone who gets drunk and crashes their vehicle. That's 100% their fault and they've burned any goodwill. In this case, however, Linode is like someone who was carjacked. Perhaps Linode shouldn't have been driving that type of vehicle in an area known to have people attempting to carjack every single vehicle that drives by. Perhaps they should have installed thicker bullet-proof glass. Or even have taken measures not to trust any locks that the manufacturer insists are secure but have zero-day exploits. Regardless, Linode is still the victim of unscrupulous criminals. Maybe they could and should have done more but the bigger question is now that they've been carjacked, what are they doing to ensure that the carjackers haven't installed anything malicious that still remains in the vehicle?
I think a more accurate analogy is to say that Linode is moving your important files from one location to another in their moving van. They park at a 7-11 to run inside and grab a snack, leaving the van unlocked. An intruder comes along, opens the unlocked doors, makes a few copies of your files and leaves. Linode gets back in the van, notices the intrusion, does nothing except tell you that "you have nothing to worry about, but you may as well change your locks" and then when the truth comes to light, they basically stop returning your phone calls.
If the allegations are true, then Linode was keeping encrypted CC numbers, with the decryption key in nearly the same place.
Trying to make the analogy more sufficient by incorporating this type of fact would only make the carjacking analogy more absurd. At the end of the day, an analogy is not needed.
