You have a fact: > vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings This

You have a fact: > vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings This is true. Now, please tell me how this applies to the FA we are talking about? The FA is about a nest customer using an insecure and exposed password and then complaining about his nest being taken over by a hacker. And this isn't some joe shmoe. This is a CEO. He is complaining. RTFA and you will see. My point: he has not right to complain, his complaint is based on the authoritarian perspective that people need to be protected against themselves. He has no giant information asymmetry which Nest exploited to hurt him. He messed up. Simple. If he can't understand how to keep passwords, he really shouldn't be a CEO, ESPECIALLY of a tech company. And here's a bigger idea, if you can't keep passwords, maybe don't use systems that need them. Just as if you can't drive drunk... maybe not drive or maybe not drink? Blaming beer companies for being abusive (which they can be) is in no way relevant to the RESPONSIBILITY people have to not drink and drive. IF a company sells a defective and bad product, they should and will be sued. If they imply you can drink and drive. Sue. If they imply or say their product doesn't need safe passwords, sue. INAL, but this probably doesn't apply here. Which is why the guy who penned the FA is writing it. He wants to shame nest. And those who are authoritarian inclined seem to me to be backing him up. Instead of seeing the article for what I see it: A captain of industry wanting all the rights and rewards of being a captain of industry, but not having to keep the responsibility of maintaining proper passwords.