4 ms·

True enough. But they are comprised entirely of people. To change their behavior you must appeal to thepeople running them.

• dhimes 6y ago
  My gripe is the companies who failed to implement because they couldn't do security in a way that was easy to use and resulted in a good user experience, but chose to be honest. I hate the (1) cheat to win and vanquish your competitors (2) when you're caught, say you're sorry, (3) win anyway because your competitors are gone progression. It seems like the penalty for that should be existential or at least something painfully severe.
  • sirspacey 6y ago
    Sincerely curious - what competitors do you believe were harmed here?
    • dhimes 6y ago
      That's the point. It's the companies that are little known that get squashed. I don't know much about the space, but I tried Google and chose zoom instead because it was easier— and I pay for Google. I tried Jitsi. But what about the ones we haven't heard of, struggling to solve the problem that Zoom lied about solving, but because they're honest they never took that step forward. It's like RealPlayer. By the time the courts catch up, the game is over. Several people are on zoom instead of Google, for instance, even though I pay for Google. I don't know the other players in the space.
      • dhimes 6y ago
        Too late to edit the above, but ignore the last sentence. It was written first, and when I rewrote the comment I somehow forgot to delete.
        • sirspacey 6y ago
          No worries. Zoom, unbelievably, built a better video conferencing solution than any product by any other company. Their top competitors were Google, Microsoft, and Cisco - several orders of magnitude larger than them. In this case, I believe the underdog won. InfoSec cuts both ways in the market. Sure, products with lower standards “poison the well.” But purchasers with burdensome, pointless, obsolete security audits do far more damage to the ecosystem. It certainly cost my startup a tremendous amount of potential growth. We far exceeded security standards like SOC Type II, but still had to bend how we solved security/user problems to Excel sheet checklists. Zoom was facing a similar issue - they delivered “secure enough” until it wasn’t. Then they, in months, made massive, productive, effective changes that addressed the new issues from skyrocketing growth. If our standards for good actors in the tech space is higher than that, I don’t know how humans can achieve them.
          • dhimes 6y ago
            Several days later, but I have to say I agree with you.
• TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Corporations are more than just sum of the people - they are a process that runs on top of people. People themselves are replaceable - and if you change the behavior of one to something the corporation doesn't want, it'll replace that person with someone new. You want to change the behavior of the corporation itself - and that's best done by creating monetary incentives and disincentives (i.e. punishment). The corporation will adjust the behavior of people on its own. In other words: "appealing to the people" instead of addressing the corporation itself is like trying to heat up a climate-controlled room by lighting a small fire in it. You'll be fighting the AC unit all the way and causing lots of unnecessary damage, when the right way to do it is to adjust the thermostat on the AC unit.
  • lanternfish 6y ago
    With an alternative analogy, pushed to the limit, it's like trying to change someone's mind by appealing to the neuron. When there's a system advanced enough to exhibit adequate emergent behavior (which most big companies probability are), the subsystems are less and less important for the macro-system's outcomes. There are neural networks with fewer neurons than the population of the corporate leadership at Zoom that we still don't really understand.
• TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  A corporation is an AI that uses people for it's computing resources. It doesn't in any way behave like a person.