Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Jun 2011 22:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 479013
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
I'm not saying it's right, but if we're all honest with one another, very few companies will make security a priority until information about insecurity reaches the public.
For companies where security doesn't drive sales, there's little incentive to be secure except to avoid public embarrassment after the fact. Whether we like it or not, going public is an effective way to motivate companies to enhance security *immediately*.
What is the solution for the lack of motivation otherwise?
More liability? I don't like the thought, but we can debate that.
Security regulation? I have doubts about the effectiveness of this.
A legal time frame after which security consultants are allowed to go public? I think this could work in a fair way, but it would never fly.
Let the public decide adequate security? Obviously this can only work if the public are aware of the relative security of competing companies, but it's hopeless if companies themselves don't even know where they stand, or they lie deliberately to customers.
What is the answer?