3 ms·
In a situation with less top-down regulation, security-focused users are more likely to rely on guarantees and audits, perhaps causing them to select different
by nickff 6y ago
In a situation with less top-down regulation, security-focused users are more likely to rely on guarantees and audits, perhaps causing them to select different vendors.
- scarmig 6y agoIs the population of security focused users enough to support an ecosystem of auditing firms? Is it enough to even support a neighborhood coffee shop?
- mojo982 6y agoIf so few users care about security, why should the government regulate for that outcome? I think theoretically the argument above makes sense, but in reality it doesn't. The market that exists doesn't provide a solution because the barrier to entry is basically infinite. Even Microsoft couldn't offer an alternative to iOS and Android because Microsoft couldn't do it alone. It's a natural monopoly problem, which means normal market arguments don't work.
- kdmccormick 6y agoIsn't this the case already (to the extent that each security-focused user finds it practical)? Would decreasing top-down regulation somehow make it easier for those users to select vendors based on their security practices? Or perhaps, would it increase the number of security-focused users? Help me understand.
- nickff 6y agoTop-down regulations often give people a false sense of security, so they don't bother doing their own research and 'watching their backs'. Regulations are also generally 'sticky', so many originators focus on bare minimum compliance, and there is a dearth of variety. Another related problem is that regulations often inentivize ignorance; the originator is usually better off not learning about breaches, so they are not as vigilant as many users think they should be.
- lupire 6y agoThat means the punishments aren't heavy enough.
- user-the-name 6y agoBut, again, in this case, there is zero regulation. So the situation you seemingly prefer is what is happening right now.
- nickff 6y agoI was attempting to respond to a commenter asking: >“For the anti-regulation guys, please explain how free market helps in this or similar cases...” And a further comment asking: >”Help me understand.” Given the response, it appears as though my attempt at elucidation is not appreciated; this being the case, I will refrain from further explanation.
- user-the-name 6y agoBut you are not helping anyone understand. You say, "if A, then B". But we look at reality, and we see that A is in fact the case, but B is nowhere to be seen. The only thing that elucidates is that libertarian ideology is largely a fantasy.
- simion314 6y agoSo how did the missing regulation helped in this case? You also "forgot" to explain what is wrong with regulation about transparency(tell me what you pt in the food, tell me if you are tracking me, tell me if you are aware that my device has a defect)
- simion314 6y agoIf you don't have regulations then you can have a company putting false labels like "Approved by the National Agency for Food/Software/Equipment safety", then each user needs to individually try to research if this agency actual exists, if the label is correct etc. Remember the class action lawsuit that forced Apple and other companies to admit that the products have a defect and provide compensation. Without a law and regulation those people would not have got their fair justice. Also I do not see how free markets could prevent some company selling you bad products, and when the PR is bad enough just re-branding and start over. Or how free markets can help with imported products that could be unsafe, you need basic regulation that impose transparency (who made the product, what it contains and other related information).
- user-the-name 6y agoThere is already basically zero regulation in this area. Where are all these guarantees and audits and vendors? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. This is a completely nonsensical libertarian fantasy.