13 ms·

Worst of all, they think people who haven't learned about security deserve what happens to them...

by 6DM 10y ago

XaYdEk 10y ago
But when you tell someone "That's not secure, you can easily get hacked. You need to [insert good security practices here]", what response do you get ? In my experience, most answer along the lines of "So what ? What could they get ? I have nothing important." or "Why would anyone ever hack me ?" or "But I have an antivirus, doesn't that make me safe ?". And then spend the next 15 minutes explaining to them how things actually work and why they need to take it seriously and offer to help. 9 out of 10, they never reach out. And it's not their fault, but the way security in general is perceived.
- 6DM 10y ago
  I think it's just a general misunderstanding of what privacy means. I've explained several times and even convinced a few people that just because they think they have nothing to hide, they generally do have something they don't want someone to know about or see. At best they will just revert back to the "I have nothing to hide" mentality after a week. I think people outside of tech just don't see how damaging it can be when you loose privacy.
  - XaYdEk 10y ago
    You implement security in order to have privacy and I agree it's poorly understood in the digital realm, mostly because it's "out of sight and out of mind". I like to use an analogy I can't remember where I picked up and reductio ad absurdum to get them past this automatic response, because that's what it is and it's based in the horrid and dangerous "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" saying. - The usual conversation - I ask them: "Do you have curtains ?" and they say: "Yes, of course" and I ask "Why ? I mean you have nothing to hide right ? What does it matter if someone can see what you are doing inside your house ?", usually they freeze for a second, "Because it's creepy". I continue "Well if it's creepy that someone would watch you in your house, isn't it just as creepy if they watched you online, what you read, what porn you watch, what you talk to your friends about ? Which do you think tells more about who you are ?". At this point silence and an increasingly worried look is the norm. I keep going: "It's not about hiding anything, it's about what is private. Otherwise why not tell everyone your darkest secret, your greatest fears, the thing you are most ashamed of doing in your life ? And that's why you should do [this or that]" But even so, it's true most default back quickly. Still a few call, ask, improve their practices. People only seem to take it seriously after they have been directly impacted in a powerfully damaging way. Edit: I have obviously had this conversation enough times to make this script in dealing with it. If you have to do it more than twice, automate it. :)
nickysielicki 10y ago
For the sake of argument, why don't they deserve what happens to them? Most people don't understand how their car works. But if you own a car and you neglect to change the oil for 50k miles, or you put diesel into your tank and ruin your car, we don't blame the automotive industry for not informing you on proper maintenance. Just like with computers, the information is out there, and it's not the job of the automaker to make sure you know it. Why are computers different?
- 6DM 10y ago
  However, if it is a very wide spread problem then they will eventually install a light on your dash to notify you to change your oil. My wife's car currently does this. Since this is the first car she's ever owned, it's good because I don't think she would have known. We also have check engine lights and indicators for when a turn signal light bulb stops working. New cars even keep track of things like tire pressure. I don't expect the mechanic to take advantage of me and instead offer me fair service at a fair price. Luckily enough people have a natural interest in it that the competition keeps prices down. My argument is in the similar vein of those who aren't physically fit to win a fist fight. Doesn't mean they deserve to pushed around, robbed or beaten just because I'm stronger and a better fighter. No matter the analogy, if someone doesn't know better it doesn't automatically mean they deserve it. Peoples lives are busy, complicated and not everyone starts on the same ground or with the same capabilities.
  - nickysielicki 10y ago
    > However, if it is a very wide spread problem then they will eventually install a light on your dash to notify you to change your oil. My wife's car currently does this. Since this is the first car she's ever owned, it's good because I don't think she would have known. We also have check engine lights and indicators for when a turn signal light bulb stops working. New cars even keep track of things like tire pressure. This is getting off subject, but I'm of the opinion that this trend is primarily motivated by locking people into a dealer for maintenance, not helping people maintain their vehicles. For example, I think BMW dealers are the only ones who have the ability to calibrate tire pressure sensors on bimmers, and some new cars are abandoning OBD-II ports. http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30505/new-car-service/ http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30505/new-car-servi... > My argument is in the similar vein of those who aren't physically fit to win a fist fight. Doesn't mean they deserve to pushed around, robbed or beaten just because I'm stronger and a better fighter. I don't think it's fair to compare these things. Of course no one deserves to be assaulted. And likewise, if someone sabotages your car or has a remote exploit for your computer, I find it hard to dish out blame. But beyond this, I think the only person who could possibly be responsible for the condition of their possessions is the owner, and I don't see why computers should be any different. Not knowing better or being too busy is not an excuse to be a party to a DDoS attack. You bought this computer, you plugged it in, and it was setup in a way where it was able to receive signals that made it send out signals that violate the contract you signed with your ISP and violate the laws that your representatives passed. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse in any other comparable situation. Just because computers are hard doesn't mean we should rework our entire legal framework. We shouldn't codify into law the idea that some subjects are obvious and should be enforced consistently, while some are beyond understanding (for most, for now), and ignorance is a viable excuse. It will inevitably become outdated. I'm held responsible if I have an old car rusting away in my backyard and it pollutes my neighbors well-water. And sure, it's harder to claim ignorance about a rusty car than it is to claim ignorance about a misconfigured computer, but I think the law has to be impartial about that.

Worst of all, they think people who haven't learned about security deserve what happens to them...

by 6DM 10y ago

Worst of all, they think people who haven't learned about security deserve what happens to them...

But when you tell someone "That's not secure, you can easily get hacked. You need to [insert good security practices here]", what response do you get ? In my experience, most answer along the lines of "So what ? What could they get ? I have nothing important." or "Why would anyone ever hack me ?" or "But I have an antivirus, doesn't that make me safe ?". And then spend the next 15 minutes explaining to them how things actually work and why they need to take it seriously and offer to help. 9 out of 10, they never reach out. And it's not their fault, but the way security in general is perceived.

6DM 10y ago
I think it's just a general misunderstanding of what privacy means. I've explained several times and even convinced a few people that just because they think they have nothing to hide, they generally do have something they don't want someone to know about or see. At best they will just revert back to the "I have nothing to hide" mentality after a week. I think people outside of tech just don't see how damaging it can be when you loose privacy.
- XaYdEk 10y ago
  You implement security in order to have privacy and I agree it's poorly understood in the digital realm, mostly because it's "out of sight and out of mind". I like to use an analogy I can't remember where I picked up and reductio ad absurdum to get them past this automatic response, because that's what it is and it's based in the horrid and dangerous "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" saying. - The usual conversation - I ask them: "Do you have curtains ?" and they say: "Yes, of course" and I ask "Why ? I mean you have nothing to hide right ? What does it matter if someone can see what you are doing inside your house ?", usually they freeze for a second, "Because it's creepy". I continue "Well if it's creepy that someone would watch you in your house, isn't it just as creepy if they watched you online, what you read, what porn you watch, what you talk to your friends about ? Which do you think tells more about who you are ?". At this point silence and an increasingly worried look is the norm. I keep going: "It's not about hiding anything, it's about what is private. Otherwise why not tell everyone your darkest secret, your greatest fears, the thing you are most ashamed of doing in your life ? And that's why you should do [this or that]" But even so, it's true most default back quickly. Still a few call, ask, improve their practices. People only seem to take it seriously after they have been directly impacted in a powerfully damaging way. Edit: I have obviously had this conversation enough times to make this script in dealing with it. If you have to do it more than twice, automate it. :)

nickysielicki 10y ago

For the sake of argument, why don't they deserve what happens to them? Most people don't understand how their car works. But if you own a car and you neglect to change the oil for 50k miles, or you put diesel into your tank and ruin your car, we don't blame the automotive industry for not informing you on proper maintenance. Just like with computers, the information is out there, and it's not the job of the automaker to make sure you know it. Why are computers different?

6DM 10y ago
However, if it is a very wide spread problem then they will eventually install a light on your dash to notify you to change your oil. My wife's car currently does this. Since this is the first car she's ever owned, it's good because I don't think she would have known. We also have check engine lights and indicators for when a turn signal light bulb stops working. New cars even keep track of things like tire pressure. I don't expect the mechanic to take advantage of me and instead offer me fair service at a fair price. Luckily enough people have a natural interest in it that the competition keeps prices down. My argument is in the similar vein of those who aren't physically fit to win a fist fight. Doesn't mean they deserve to pushed around, robbed or beaten just because I'm stronger and a better fighter. No matter the analogy, if someone doesn't know better it doesn't automatically mean they deserve it. Peoples lives are busy, complicated and not everyone starts on the same ground or with the same capabilities.
- nickysielicki 10y ago
  > However, if it is a very wide spread problem then they will eventually install a light on your dash to notify you to change your oil. My wife's car currently does this. Since this is the first car she's ever owned, it's good because I don't think she would have known. We also have check engine lights and indicators for when a turn signal light bulb stops working. New cars even keep track of things like tire pressure. This is getting off subject, but I'm of the opinion that this trend is primarily motivated by locking people into a dealer for maintenance, not helping people maintain their vehicles. For example, I think BMW dealers are the only ones who have the ability to calibrate tire pressure sensors on bimmers, and some new cars are abandoning OBD-II ports. http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30505/new-car-service/ http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30505/new-car-servi... > My argument is in the similar vein of those who aren't physically fit to win a fist fight. Doesn't mean they deserve to pushed around, robbed or beaten just because I'm stronger and a better fighter. I don't think it's fair to compare these things. Of course no one deserves to be assaulted. And likewise, if someone sabotages your car or has a remote exploit for your computer, I find it hard to dish out blame. But beyond this, I think the only person who could possibly be responsible for the condition of their possessions is the owner, and I don't see why computers should be any different. Not knowing better or being too busy is not an excuse to be a party to a DDoS attack. You bought this computer, you plugged it in, and it was setup in a way where it was able to receive signals that made it send out signals that violate the contract you signed with your ISP and violate the laws that your representatives passed. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse in any other comparable situation. Just because computers are hard doesn't mean we should rework our entire legal framework. We shouldn't codify into law the idea that some subjects are obvious and should be enforced consistently, while some are beyond understanding (for most, for now), and ignorance is a viable excuse. It will inevitably become outdated. I'm held responsible if I have an old car rusting away in my backyard and it pollutes my neighbors well-water. And sure, it's harder to claim ignorance about a rusty car than it is to claim ignorance about a misconfigured computer, but I think the law has to be impartial about that.