4 ms·

The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to inve

The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Whereas with climate, any thing a single company or individual does has absolutely minimal impact on reducing their risks unless everyone else does it too. Most cybercrime isn't a result of really really clever cybercriminals, it's a result of really really poor security practices, a solveable problem.

networkimprov 6y ago
Cybercrime vs cybersecurity is an arms race, and arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable.
- tatersolid 6y ago
  > arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable. Usually they are resolved when one or more of the racers goes bankrupt. See the Soviet Union.
raverbashing 6y ago
Cybercrime will be properly addressed when companies realize: 1) it's not just a matter of insurance, "ticking boxes" and "buying solutions" and 2) law enforcement actually investigates and prosecutes those involved (even if it involves international action)
helge9210 6y ago
> The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Let's drop "cyber" for a second. Suppose some (potentially, foreign state sponsored) actor starts to physically attack/kidnap company employees in company's home country that is starts to affect the bottom line. No one would say "They have to start investing more into security". It would be normal for the company to totally offload the problem on the home state. Now, getting back to "cybersecurity": why company is supposed to handle it instead of offloading the problem on the state?
- lanternfish 6y ago
  You're still supposed to put locks on your doors even though it's the police's 'job' to prevent property crime. Moreover, I don't think many tech companies want to give the state the access required to impliment preventative security measures for them, they'd rather role them themselves to maintain control.
  - helge9210 6y ago
    > You're still supposed to put locks on your doors Locks are for honest people. > to impliment preventative security measures for them That's not a job of the state. The job of the state is to punish (cyber)criminals. And it's not the harshness of the punishment that matters, it's the inevitability.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > Locks are for honest people. That's a great slogan. But-- your (cyber)security stance obviously affects your risk. There are things you can do with business model, stance, and organizational controls that absolutely affect your exposure to both cybercrime and real-world crime. Your home state can absolutely provide help in your strategy against (cyber)crime, but surely we also should probably avoid getting blackout drunk and flashing large sums of cash around dense urban cores, too.
- chadash 6y ago
  I don’t believe this is true. Wealthy companies that do business in dangerous countries tend to pay quite a bit for security of key employees. If you are a white collar worker of MegaCorp Oil traveling to Iraq for business, you will be provided with security. If you are a local Iraqi working in the oil fields, you can probably expect less security, precisely because your loss won’t affect the bottom line. But even so, private security is common in many factories and other company facilities, even in the US. Pretty much every skyscraper in NYC has security employees even though you can call the police there. If New York became more dangerous, I assure you security budgets would go up
nostrademons 6y ago
Climate is self-solving too, just not in a way that humanity should welcome. When the climate becomes inhospitable enough, lots of humans will die. When humans die, they stop producing carbon emissions (well, technically a bit after they die, since they still need to decompose). Eventually the planet reaches a new equilibrium with fewer humans and higher temperatures. Humanity has a self-preservation instinct in not letting that happen, just as corporations have a self-preservation instinct for not losing all their money to cybercrime. But one advantage corporations have is that they can generally act as one body, while getting all of humanity to agree on something is usually not possible until it's too late.

networkimprov 6y ago

Cybercrime vs cybersecurity is an arms race, and arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable.

tatersolid 6y ago
> arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable. Usually they are resolved when one or more of the racers goes bankrupt. See the Soviet Union.

raverbashing 6y ago

Cybercrime will be properly addressed when companies realize: 1) it's not just a matter of insurance, "ticking boxes" and "buying solutions" and 2) law enforcement actually investigates and prosecutes those involved (even if it involves international action)

helge9210 6y ago

> The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Let's drop "cyber" for a second. Suppose some (potentially, foreign state sponsored) actor starts to physically attack/kidnap company employees in company's home country that is starts to affect the bottom line. No one would say "They have to start investing more into security". It would be normal for the company to totally offload the problem on the home state. Now, getting back to "cybersecurity": why company is supposed to handle it instead of offloading the problem on the state?

lanternfish 6y ago
You're still supposed to put locks on your doors even though it's the police's 'job' to prevent property crime. Moreover, I don't think many tech companies want to give the state the access required to impliment preventative security measures for them, they'd rather role them themselves to maintain control.
- helge9210 6y ago
  > You're still supposed to put locks on your doors Locks are for honest people. > to impliment preventative security measures for them That's not a job of the state. The job of the state is to punish (cyber)criminals. And it's not the harshness of the punishment that matters, it's the inevitability.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > Locks are for honest people. That's a great slogan. But-- your (cyber)security stance obviously affects your risk. There are things you can do with business model, stance, and organizational controls that absolutely affect your exposure to both cybercrime and real-world crime. Your home state can absolutely provide help in your strategy against (cyber)crime, but surely we also should probably avoid getting blackout drunk and flashing large sums of cash around dense urban cores, too.
chadash 6y ago
I don’t believe this is true. Wealthy companies that do business in dangerous countries tend to pay quite a bit for security of key employees. If you are a white collar worker of MegaCorp Oil traveling to Iraq for business, you will be provided with security. If you are a local Iraqi working in the oil fields, you can probably expect less security, precisely because your loss won’t affect the bottom line. But even so, private security is common in many factories and other company facilities, even in the US. Pretty much every skyscraper in NYC has security employees even though you can call the police there. If New York became more dangerous, I assure you security budgets would go up

nostrademons 6y ago

Climate is self-solving too, just not in a way that humanity should welcome. When the climate becomes inhospitable enough, lots of humans will die. When humans die, they stop producing carbon emissions (well, technically a bit after they die, since they still need to decompose). Eventually the planet reaches a new equilibrium with fewer humans and higher temperatures. Humanity has a self-preservation instinct in not letting that happen, just as corporations have a self-preservation instinct for not losing all their money to cybercrime. But one advantage corporations have is that they can generally act as one body, while getting all of humanity to agree on something is usually not possible until it's too late.