5 ms·
Seems unwise to reason backwards from your desired conclusion (commons implies censorship/regulation, so it can't be a commons). Security is indeed a commons b
by smallnamespace 10y ago
Seems unwise to reason backwards from your desired conclusion (commons implies censorship/regulation, so it can't be a commons).
Security is indeed a commons because the overall security of the ecosystem only benefits each person weakly, and so every actor rationally benefits by neglecting security.
External regulation isn't the only way to address commons problems. Manufacturers can see the writing on the wall and work together to solve issues, but only if the public pushes them to.
- akavel 10y agoI imagine that it can also get better once a company can gain competitive advantage by advertising that "our device is secure!" But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/
- vertex-four 10y agoOf course, anyone can say "our device is secure", and if the industry is left to its own devices to create a standard for being allowed to say that, they'll pick the cheapest standard possible. Then, so long as they can say "we were following the standards", and the standards company can say "we're updating the standard" every time, nobody cares.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> But I suppose a precondition for this is customer awareness of the issue, which probably requires some well publicized high impact/casualty incidents first? :/ I'd say it absolutely requires a high-impact case, something like downing of an airplane, or a cyberattack that sets half of the city in flames. Otherwise, any concern of people about security will quickly get papered over by marketing - as it always is.