News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by gnaritas on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @02:06PM (#12599849)
You're the one trying to make it black and white, he's simply saying that unlike private industry, government can have another motive be primary rather than profit, i.e. help it citizens as the primary goal. Yea, budgets aren't unlimited, but not having to be profitable makes a huge difference in which actions can be taken. Profit is not the correct goal for every action that can be taken by an organization, government isn't a business.
Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by polarix on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @02:31PM (#12600069)
If "profit" is defined as: "generating more value than is consumed in the production process"...

Then yes, we damn well better demand that profit be the correct goal for every action regardless of organizational structure.

If our system is distorted to inaccurately measure profit locally, without properly accounting for negative externalities, then that's a legitimate problem, but the way to solve it is by factoring those hidden costs back into the profit calculation, not giving up on "profitability" properly defined.

Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by imagist on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:34PM (#12600594)
If profit is defined as $income - $expenses = $profit, then you'd be using the word the way everyone else is using it, and you'd be participating productively in the conversation.
Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by basseq on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:15PM (#12600433)

  > ... government can have another motive be primary 
  > rather than profit, i.e. help it citizens as the 
  > primary goal.
But there's still ROI here, and there's still a budget (no matter how big the deficit gets). So the question remains: how do I spend that money? Do I spend all of it on security apparatuses, or do I have to scale back and spend some on other social services? How much? What's the best bang for my buck?
Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by imagist on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:31PM (#12600563)
Given the current state of computer security, a government program that fines companies for poor security practices could easily pay for itself.
Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by crazy1van on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @08:02PM (#12602328)
> budgets aren't unlimited, but not having to be profitable makes a huge difference in which actions can be taken.

Profits are still required for gov't spending, but they are just made by someone else in the country and transferred to the gov't via taxation. Even deficit spending is just the choice to spend money today that will be obtained from taxation at a later date.

Re:Defending Against Hackers Took a Back Seat at Yahoo, Insi... by snowwrestler on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @02:58PM (#12600281)
I know this is snarky, but: tell it to the OMB.

Corporations do not have any sort of exclusive lock on cost-benefit analysis.

Edit: including bad cost-benefit analysis.