Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong...
by emodendroket on Friday September 23, 2016 @10:15AM
(#12564769)
Because there are significant external costs that the entities sloppily handling records don't have to pay but the rest of us do. Presumably that's the reference they had in mind when they referred to the "Ford Pinto formula," since it's unlikely customers would have agreed that it was better to have cars that had some risk of blowing up and killing them so Ford could make more money.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong...
by WalterBright on Friday September 23, 2016 @10:00PM
(#12569099)
All products carry some risk, and all companies calculate the risk vs the cost of mitigation. It's impossible to make any product if safety trumps everything else.
Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong...
by emodendroket on Friday September 23, 2016 @11:03PM
(#12569240)
OK, but if it costs you tens of thousands of dollars when some bad thing happens and it costs the vendor nothing they're likely not actually making a reasonable trade-off; they're just leaving you out to dry.