> then one is forced to admit that we also have generally good security and privacy safeguards. It's a tremendous conceit of the software community to actually

> then one is forced to admit that we also have generally good security and privacy safeguards. It's a tremendous conceit of the software community to actually believe these are purely-software problems that can be solved through software. Sure, software goes a long way, but I argue that it's a fool's errand to hope they can or should be solved in software, exclusively. Like - hardware will always be a factor, at least that should be obvious. But also culture/ society/ laws/ etc. have important practical implications. The very fact that we have lots of people scrutinizing these aspects suggests that the state of software security&privacy is really not "crap" (far from perfect, but definitely not "crap"). To you believe that article to be true, one must have a fairly black&white view of the world. 99% (probably much more) of the humans can't really bypass those "crap" security safeguards.... it's good that we have high standards (especially in areas like this), but come on. When in the human history was security(in general) better? What are we comparing it with, to postulate it's "crap"?