5 ms·

I think you are missing a crucial point. I as a consumer really do not care in the least if someone hacks my device. Worst comes to worst I either do some sort

by s_m_t 8y ago

I think you are missing a crucial point. I as a consumer really do not care in the least if someone hacks my device. Worst comes to worst I either do some sort of factory reset or just throw it out, I was probably looking to buy the shinier version anyways. Who cares? I really dont care if my tea kettle is part of some botnet. I cant even imagine a reason why I should care. I guess it sorta sucks for the people getting ddosed :/ For instance, my router cost me $20. It is probably full of security holes. I dont care. To buy a router that was secure I would have to pay more than $20. I would not feel any benefit for spending that extra money. So I don't do it. On the other hand, as a developer I'm always thinking about security because it is fun and I feel a sense of responsibility for the things I make.

paulie_a 8y ago
Outside of the fact important information can easily be stolen. Personally I think the consumer should face financial liability when iot devices are used in massive attacks that create problems for others. Just because you chose a shitty vendor with a shitty product doesn't mean the entire internet should suffer. I am a fan of things like brickerbot and I hope that sort of thing continues aggressively.
- speedplane 8y ago
  How can you reasonably ask a consumer to evaluate the security of a product when many don’t have basic education? Also, many reputable companies that make “good products” have security breaches, so you can’t just rely on reputation.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Force the consumer to force manufacturers to make less shitty products. Until that happens I hope brickerbot type attacks continue to happen for the cheapo crap. Sure good products can have a security flaw. But iot and home routers are complete garbage. The consumer should be held liable for being apart of massive disruption of the internet. It's the equivalent of manslaughter, you might not have intended it. But in this case you didn't do anything to stop it and helped to cause millions in damage. I quite frankly don't care about their education. That's their responsibility. Just the same as you need to learn to drive.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      The way the consumer would force manufacturers to do this is by passing laws that would make manufacturers liable. They would do this because of information asymmetry and the collective action problem. At the point of purchase, consumers don't have the information to make a choice, and they don't have the ability to will an alternative into existence so they can choose it. Improvement in collective outcomes is often hard to achieve purely through market means, which is why we don't rely on markets to solve all these problems.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      Why make millions liable where a few hundred bad actors can be trivially dealt with.
intended 8y ago
yup- the "consumer" is not a source of moral force. Its an approximation of whatever purchase decisions people make. So consumers would of course be happy if you made plastic straws - look at how many get sold! Now if you told people they would not have plastics, and everything would cost 5x more because we dont have a cheap packaging option, OR tell people that they couldnt transport liquids anymore because we dont have bottles - well you can imagine those customers and consumers would be upset. The economy is not moral. Morality is laws and regulations which impose restrictions on the system to make it fair Environmentally friendly less exploitive etc. We try and let the market resolve as much of this on its own, so that we can have market efficiency without tying it up with regulations.
- smolder 8y ago
  Consumers are happy about plastic straws because it was conveniently (for the producer of straws) not communicated to them how manufacture of plastic straws is irresponsible and creates external costs to the environment at no cost to the producer. You can't honestly believe it's both okay to mislead people in commerce and okay to put the onus of good judgement on them.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
smolder 8y ago
Would you similarly not care if drug dealers sold drugs in your driveway, Viagra sellers sent spam from your email, and so on? I think you're being disingenuous.

by s_m_t 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago

Outside of the fact important information can easily be stolen. Personally I think the consumer should face financial liability when iot devices are used in massive attacks that create problems for others. Just because you chose a shitty vendor with a shitty product doesn't mean the entire internet should suffer. I am a fan of things like brickerbot and I hope that sort of thing continues aggressively.

speedplane 8y ago
How can you reasonably ask a consumer to evaluate the security of a product when many don’t have basic education? Also, many reputable companies that make “good products” have security breaches, so you can’t just rely on reputation.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Force the consumer to force manufacturers to make less shitty products. Until that happens I hope brickerbot type attacks continue to happen for the cheapo crap. Sure good products can have a security flaw. But iot and home routers are complete garbage. The consumer should be held liable for being apart of massive disruption of the internet. It's the equivalent of manslaughter, you might not have intended it. But in this case you didn't do anything to stop it and helped to cause millions in damage. I quite frankly don't care about their education. That's their responsibility. Just the same as you need to learn to drive.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    The way the consumer would force manufacturers to do this is by passing laws that would make manufacturers liable. They would do this because of information asymmetry and the collective action problem. At the point of purchase, consumers don't have the information to make a choice, and they don't have the ability to will an alternative into existence so they can choose it. Improvement in collective outcomes is often hard to achieve purely through market means, which is why we don't rely on markets to solve all these problems.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Why make millions liable where a few hundred bad actors can be trivially dealt with.

intended 8y ago

yup- the "consumer" is not a source of moral force. Its an approximation of whatever purchase decisions people make. So consumers would of course be happy if you made plastic straws - look at how many get sold! Now if you told people they would not have plastics, and everything would cost 5x more because we dont have a cheap packaging option, OR tell people that they couldnt transport liquids anymore because we dont have bottles - well you can imagine those customers and consumers would be upset. The economy is not moral. Morality is laws and regulations which impose restrictions on the system to make it fair Environmentally friendly less exploitive etc. We try and let the market resolve as much of this on its own, so that we can have market efficiency without tying it up with regulations.

smolder 8y ago
Consumers are happy about plastic straws because it was conveniently (for the producer of straws) not communicated to them how manufacture of plastic straws is irresponsible and creates external costs to the environment at no cost to the producer. You can't honestly believe it's both okay to mislead people in commerce and okay to put the onus of good judgement on them.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

smolder 8y ago

Would you similarly not care if drug dealers sold drugs in your driveway, Viagra sellers sent spam from your email, and so on? I think you're being disingenuous.