4 ms·

Criminalizing something doesn't mean you've "done something about it". It just means you've applied a traditionally flawed approach to fix a systemic problem th

by ksk 9y ago

Criminalizing something doesn't mean you've "done something about it". It just means you've applied a traditionally flawed approach to fix a systemic problem that could be better handled through education, training and awareness. However, those things are much harder to do than to simply write something into the legal code without the public being any more prepared to deal with the situation.

anigbrowl 9y ago
a systemic problem that could be better handled through education, training and awareness How's that been working out for you? This isn't a new problem. Where are those educational, training, and social awareness resources? What budgets have been allocated to them? What mechanisms put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the deployment? How many more years of theoretical discussions about ideal solutions should we have before acting, notwithstanding the possibility of error? If your cautious incrementalist approach is so great (and heaven knows I've spent many years thinking and advocating within that framework) why does the problem keep getting worse? How long and to what extent are you willing to wait for this informed public to manifest and (somehow) overcome all the countervailing forces that have economic and political interests in quite different outcomes? And why, I ask myself, did you respond to my positive proposal about "strong user-centric privacy protections with strict liability and significant personal and organization penalties for negligence" by ignoring it and instead knocking down a straw man of 'criminalization' that I took care to avoid? You don't want to be the person responsible for taking or advocating for a decision that might work out poorly, fine. But reiterating the reasons for your hesitancy achieves nothing.
- ksk 9y ago
  >Where are those educational, training, and social awareness resources? What budgets have been allocated to them? What mechanisms put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the deployment? Just because there is no information about that in the article, doesn't mean they weren't in place. > If your cautious incrementalist approach is so great (and heaven knows I've spent many years thinking and advocating within that framework) why does the problem keep getting worse? How do we know its getting worse? I work with a LOT of non-technical people, and they are very good at detecting spam emails, and not clicking on the fake bluescreen popups, etc using just their intuition and general awareness. They DO pay attention whenever articles about viruses and hacking and whatnot hit the front page. >You don't want to be the person responsible for taking or advocating for a decision that might work out poorly, fine. But reiterating the reasons for your hesitancy achieves nothing. Would you consider flipping it then? Let's also put software developers who introduce security bugs in jail. Oh, but software is so so complex!! A million different pieces working together, and I didn't write all that other code, so how could __I__ possibly be held responsible?! Well, people to people interactions are complex too, and putting a process in place where every person is supposed to follow a protocol is hard too.

by ksk 9y ago

anigbrowl 9y ago

a systemic problem that could be better handled through education, training and awareness How's that been working out for you? This isn't a new problem. Where are those educational, training, and social awareness resources? What budgets have been allocated to them? What mechanisms put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the deployment? How many more years of theoretical discussions about ideal solutions should we have before acting, notwithstanding the possibility of error? If your cautious incrementalist approach is so great (and heaven knows I've spent many years thinking and advocating within that framework) why does the problem keep getting worse? How long and to what extent are you willing to wait for this informed public to manifest and (somehow) overcome all the countervailing forces that have economic and political interests in quite different outcomes? And why, I ask myself, did you respond to my positive proposal about "strong user-centric privacy protections with strict liability and significant personal and organization penalties for negligence" by ignoring it and instead knocking down a straw man of 'criminalization' that I took care to avoid? You don't want to be the person responsible for taking or advocating for a decision that might work out poorly, fine. But reiterating the reasons for your hesitancy achieves nothing.

ksk 9y ago
>Where are those educational, training, and social awareness resources? What budgets have been allocated to them? What mechanisms put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the deployment? Just because there is no information about that in the article, doesn't mean they weren't in place. > If your cautious incrementalist approach is so great (and heaven knows I've spent many years thinking and advocating within that framework) why does the problem keep getting worse? How do we know its getting worse? I work with a LOT of non-technical people, and they are very good at detecting spam emails, and not clicking on the fake bluescreen popups, etc using just their intuition and general awareness. They DO pay attention whenever articles about viruses and hacking and whatnot hit the front page. >You don't want to be the person responsible for taking or advocating for a decision that might work out poorly, fine. But reiterating the reasons for your hesitancy achieves nothing. Would you consider flipping it then? Let's also put software developers who introduce security bugs in jail. Oh, but software is so so complex!! A million different pieces working together, and I didn't write all that other code, so how could __I__ possibly be held responsible?! Well, people to people interactions are complex too, and putting a process in place where every person is supposed to follow a protocol is hard too.