The article is very slightly more nuanced but the conceptss the title purports is DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT for any security expert / discussion / context. 1) id

The article is very slightly more nuanced but the conceptss the title purports is DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT for any security expert / discussion / context. 1) idea that security is something you check off and be done with is dangerously wrong. Security must be continuous, must be updated, reviewed, etc. 2) idea that you can "encrypt" [secure] your entire life is ludacris and leads to many dangerous security misconceptions. You don't even have control of your entire life, let alone ability to secure it. Most the data on you is owned by others and not even available to you to secure. The world is not private or secure. Everyone needs to know and think about this when they are tweeting, sexting, talking shit about future president and then being surprised when SS comes to investigate. 3) idea that security is either on/off, a binary, that you can be secure or not. Is False and leads to extremely poor security choices, over/under securing. Nothing is secure. There is not such thing as SECURE. Things lie on a gradient of security from easy to break to impractically difficult. Things on the impractical to break technically end are still broken due to social engineering, externalities (power consumption of cpu), poor practices surrounding item, etc. Security is making the effort required to get an item greater than the value of getting the item.