Re:Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Se...
by rossdavidh on Friday August 17, 2018 @07:45PM
(#17786127)
...and we don't just rely on drug makers, for example, to be moral and take responsibility. We have government agencies that _require_ strict testing of their safety and effectiveness. If we left it up to the market, we would get inferior results. The problem is, we have no FDA equivalent for tech security.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Se...
by acct1771 on Saturday August 18, 2018 @01:09AM
(#17786969)
That's a great point made with a pretty suspect example. FDA very subject to regulatory capture.
Re:Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Se...
by rossdavidh on Saturday August 18, 2018 @10:41AM
(#17788657)
Regulatory capture is certainly an important problem, but the pre-FDA record suggests strongly that the FDA we have is much better than not having one. But I would certainly not suggest that there is not a real problem with regulatory capture, just that the current situation in tech security (no FDA equivalent) is worse.
Re:Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Se...
by alex_anglin on Saturday August 18, 2018 @09:58AM
(#17788479)
Regulatory capture is certainly an issue, but it doesn't mean that the FDA isn't better than not having a regulatory regime at all.
Re:Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Se...
by Spooky23 on Saturday August 18, 2018 @10:07AM
(#17788510)
The cost of the FDA is that the process is slower.
The benefit is that medicine is effective and measurably safe. It’s obviously necessary, and the supplement industry shows why.