3 ms·

> What harm reduction happens when the 'large entities' are the courts[0], municipalities[1] or even hospitals[2]? Aren't these the entities that you would mos

> What harm reduction happens when the 'large entities' are the courts[0], municipalities[1] or even hospitals[2]? Aren't these the entities that you would most want to keep your data secure? > Alleged better safeguarding of our data* isn't worth it. > * I suspect that right now companies find it cheaper to pay than to improve their security. That makes no sense, because if you don't improve your security, you'll be hacked in the same way again. There isn't an upper bound on how much it can cost to not improve your security.

yyyk 6y ago
>Aren't these the entities that you would most want to keep your data secure? I don't think the local municipality or the courts have anything I'd consider sensitive on me. Regardless, my bigger desire is for them to stay running, especially the hospitals. I'm not willing to temporarily shut some down 'for better security'. >That makes no sense, because if you don't improve your security, you'll be hacked in the same way again. There isn't an upper bound on how much it can cost to not improve your security. What actually happens is that the targets pay, and issue tougher mandates which may or may not be respected in their organization. These hacks are rare enough for now - I suspect hackers don't like to hit the same target again soon after (bigger risk of the target not paying you) - so eventually the organization slips back into same security morass they were in the first place, if they ever left it. There isn't a true desire to change. Also, there is an upper bound if you're paying insurance, like that hospital did[0]. Over the long term insurers will raise their price, but at least it's a predictable bound. [0] https://www.wwnytv.com/2020/07/28/western-ny-hospital-recounts-ransomware-experience-smc-deals-with-malware-attack/ https://www.wwnytv.com/2020/07/28/western-ny-hospital-recoun...

yyyk 6y ago

>Aren't these the entities that you would most want to keep your data secure? I don't think the local municipality or the courts have anything I'd consider sensitive on me. Regardless, my bigger desire is for them to stay running, especially the hospitals. I'm not willing to temporarily shut some down 'for better security'. >That makes no sense, because if you don't improve your security, you'll be hacked in the same way again. There isn't an upper bound on how much it can cost to not improve your security. What actually happens is that the targets pay, and issue tougher mandates which may or may not be respected in their organization. These hacks are rare enough for now - I suspect hackers don't like to hit the same target again soon after (bigger risk of the target not paying you) - so eventually the organization slips back into same security morass they were in the first place, if they ever left it. There isn't a true desire to change. Also, there is an upper bound if you're paying insurance, like that hospital did[0]. Over the long term insurers will raise their price, but at least it's a predictable bound. [0] https://www.wwnytv.com/2020/07/28/western-ny-hospital-recounts-ransomware-experience-smc-deals-with-malware-attack/ https://www.wwnytv.com/2020/07/28/western-ny-hospital-recoun...