The Effectiveness of Publicly Shaming Bad Security

Re:The Effectiveness of Publicly Shaming Bad Security by dsfyu404ed on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @09:52AM (#17959671)

>You're right, we should be totally OK with a company that makes profit off of us using 10 year old outdated security techniques - we wouldn't want to be rude.

Nowhere did the person you're replying to even hint at, suggest or in any way imply this. He/she just said that shaming people into doing whatever the $good_thing_of_the_day is is a case of assuming the ends justifies the means and that's kind of ethically murky.

I don't have a problem with putting a bank on blast for bad security. Security is part of their core value proposition. That's why most people don't hide their savings under their mattress.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Effectiveness of Publicly Shaming Bad Security by vorpalhex on Tuesday September 11, 2018 @09:55AM (#17959705)

There's a difference between shaming a company because they didn't give orphans free food, and failing to secure the data they opted into collect. We have a duty to treat people as ends, but no such duty applies to companies nor their paid mouthpieces (during their duties).

If the company didn't want the burden of security, then don't keep secured content. They opted in.

[ Parent | on HN ]