This is probably going to be an unpopular position, but I think it's also important to keep in mind all the arguably beneficial things that insecure and "open not by design, but by neglect/accident/unintent" systems have brought us. Homebrew software on gaming consoles; "jailbreaking" and "rooting" phones; various other hardware/software hacks; leaks of information that have provided important information to the public (including, most ironically, the Snowden/NSA stuff.)

Would living in a world where events like Heartbleed will occasionally occur, but one where we still have the relative freedom to modify, examine, and generally "hack" our software and hardware in ways the original creators didn't approve of, be better than one of "absolute security" and highly restricted, locked-down devices controlled by corporations (and possibly the government)? I think the whole security situation has reached a point where people have to really start thinking about the tradeoffs that are happening, and realise that all this technology - as much as it can protect against external attacks and defend the users - can also be just as easily employed by others to oppress them. Once again, the infamous Ben Franklin quote comes to mind.