This argument is reasonable-ish but wrong. Companies have long been subject to information security crises. Earlier, there were viruses; today, it is ransomware

This argument is reasonable-ish but wrong. Companies have long been subject to information security crises. Earlier, there were viruses; today, it is ransomware. Business practices will change in a way that makes these hacks less feasible, but not most businesses just aren't interested in it. The fantastic new security of the future won't be secure by design, it'll be known-ransomware-proof. (Also, implicit in the claim is the argument that any activity is good activity. I don't think that holds: I think paying for security guards and spending disk space or CPU cycles on security measures are necessary, but not beneficial. Probably, the world would be better if there are no bad actors. But I can only assent to your claim if I believe that the world is better if we protect against bad actors than if we have no bad actors and no protection. This is probably the cause of you getting downvoted.)