I think ethbro is saying that focusing on absolutely secure systems would drive up costs, not that if we make them more expensive we'll somehow get more security just because they're more expensive.
Re:No, Google, We Did Not Consent to This
by ggggtez on Friday October 12, 2018 @01:41PM
(#18203161)
I think this is overlooking the real criticism, which is that there is no evidence that simply wanting something to be secure would make it so.
For example, the parent article, the one this comment is ostensibly in response to, has nothing to do with operating system security.
Re:No, Google, We Did Not Consent to This
by ecnahc515 on Friday October 12, 2018 @02:49PM
(#18203724)
They weren't suggesting we need more secure OSes specifically, that was just an example.
A better example is maybe instead of Google spending $xxx,000 to develop the system that was found insecure they should have spent $x,000,000 so they had more resources devoted to the security aspects.
Perhaps this is too high for this system to exist; well maybe that system just shouldn't exist if it can't be secured properly with the budget for it.
That's an interesting theory that's not supported by historical evidence as far as I can tell. When computers were expensive, there just were less people with access. The systems were not any more secure.