4 ms·

You bring up a very good point, and personally I attribute this to the tyranny of shareholder primacy. At least here in the states, nothing is going to change u

by tomc1985 5y ago

You bring up a very good point, and personally I attribute this to the tyranny of shareholder primacy. At least here in the states, nothing is going to change until there is an alternative that places shareholders at a level that is at most equal to other considerations, and more preferably below more important business considerations.

Godel_unicode 5y ago
That's not how anything works. The shareholders are the ones asking the company to do a good job with the important business decisions so that the company will do well and the stock will go up. How else would it work...?
- tomc1985 5y ago
  As some other comments point out, security hardening doesn't directly raise company value. It's hard to justify in the short-term. Attitudes about it are much better now than they have ever been, but there are still a lot of folks out there that don't prioritize it.
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    This argument is super lazy. Businesses do tons of things which don't raise short-term value. R&D, buying insurance, hiring junior people, laying out money for reserved instances with AWS. Guess what all of these have in common? The exact thing that security has; eliminating long-term risk. Don't blame the stock holders because your arguments didn't persuade management...
- yccs27 5y ago
  More like, the shareholders are asking the company to do whatever it takes to turn the biggest possible profit. That might mean solid business decisions, or unscrupulous externalization of costs.
an_opabinia 5y ago
There are lots of human endeavors that have zero shareholders, involve computers, and the people doing them think about security exactly 0 minutes out of the day and everyone thrives. This is to say that the opinion about how it’s the bottom line blah blah blah is probably totally wrong, and maybe the security blowhards are just talking about shit that is irrelevant like 99% of the time.
- blooalien 5y ago
  And then you have huge corporations with zillions of dollars passing through their systems, employing hundreds or thousands of people, and storing terabytes of mission-critical data, who treat the people who try to help them make wise IT decisions like mindless code-monkeys who don't know anything, despite having been ostensibly hired for their expertise on the topic.
  - silexia 5y ago
    Stop blaming the victims. If every corporation had to enforce their own physical security with a private army to prevent theft or killing of their employees, then no business could be a going concern. We have a social contract where businesses just need to put forth some minimum effort (door locks, alarm) and police and the military do the rest. We need to enforce this social contract online and against global criminals now. If the criminals are in a state that harbors them, use 10x retaliation to that state to give them an incentive to fix the problem. Dictators don't respect anything but force.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      Yeah, I've come to realize we don't have any "social contracts" on this planet. We have a planetary cancer called "humanity" that barely manages to cooperate even in their common desire for destruction of everything good in the universe.
scruffyherder 5y ago
And yet we mitigated y2k. All with publicly traded companies. The reward was simply being open for business on 1/1/2001 without slipping a beat. Sometimes I think as an industry we hyped too much and over delivered giving the impression that it was no big deal.
- ziml77 5y ago
  The difference is that we knew that the Y2K bug was coming. It was a given that we were going to end up reaching 1/1/2000. Here, it's not a given that backups will ever need to be touched. Spending a lot of money to fix something that is known will happen is easy to justify. If you don't do it, you will end up losing significant amounts of money. For something that isn't guaranteed to happen, it's harder to justify putting a lot of money into it. What is the value of doing thorough testing of backups if they're never actually accessed? One could argue that it's purely a waste of money.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "One could argue that it's purely a waste of money. " A counterargument would be just any of the frequent news articles about company X having to pay Y millions or lost such and such money.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  * 1/1/2000
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Actually 3 dates, that was one. 2000 was a leap year and lots of systems got that wrong. 9/9/1999 was sometimes used as a can't happen date as well.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

That's not how anything works. The shareholders are the ones asking the company to do a good job with the important business decisions so that the company will do well and the stock will go up. How else would it work...?

tomc1985 5y ago
As some other comments point out, security hardening doesn't directly raise company value. It's hard to justify in the short-term. Attitudes about it are much better now than they have ever been, but there are still a lot of folks out there that don't prioritize it.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  This argument is super lazy. Businesses do tons of things which don't raise short-term value. R&D, buying insurance, hiring junior people, laying out money for reserved instances with AWS. Guess what all of these have in common? The exact thing that security has; eliminating long-term risk. Don't blame the stock holders because your arguments didn't persuade management...
yccs27 5y ago
More like, the shareholders are asking the company to do whatever it takes to turn the biggest possible profit. That might mean solid business decisions, or unscrupulous externalization of costs.

an_opabinia 5y ago

There are lots of human endeavors that have zero shareholders, involve computers, and the people doing them think about security exactly 0 minutes out of the day and everyone thrives. This is to say that the opinion about how it’s the bottom line blah blah blah is probably totally wrong, and maybe the security blowhards are just talking about shit that is irrelevant like 99% of the time.

blooalien 5y ago
And then you have huge corporations with zillions of dollars passing through their systems, employing hundreds or thousands of people, and storing terabytes of mission-critical data, who treat the people who try to help them make wise IT decisions like mindless code-monkeys who don't know anything, despite having been ostensibly hired for their expertise on the topic.
- silexia 5y ago
  Stop blaming the victims. If every corporation had to enforce their own physical security with a private army to prevent theft or killing of their employees, then no business could be a going concern. We have a social contract where businesses just need to put forth some minimum effort (door locks, alarm) and police and the military do the rest. We need to enforce this social contract online and against global criminals now. If the criminals are in a state that harbors them, use 10x retaliation to that state to give them an incentive to fix the problem. Dictators don't respect anything but force.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    Yeah, I've come to realize we don't have any "social contracts" on this planet. We have a planetary cancer called "humanity" that barely manages to cooperate even in their common desire for destruction of everything good in the universe.

scruffyherder 5y ago

And yet we mitigated y2k. All with publicly traded companies. The reward was simply being open for business on 1/1/2001 without slipping a beat. Sometimes I think as an industry we hyped too much and over delivered giving the impression that it was no big deal.

ziml77 5y ago
The difference is that we knew that the Y2K bug was coming. It was a given that we were going to end up reaching 1/1/2000. Here, it's not a given that backups will ever need to be touched. Spending a lot of money to fix something that is known will happen is easy to justify. If you don't do it, you will end up losing significant amounts of money. For something that isn't guaranteed to happen, it's harder to justify putting a lot of money into it. What is the value of doing thorough testing of backups if they're never actually accessed? One could argue that it's purely a waste of money.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "One could argue that it's purely a waste of money. " A counterargument would be just any of the frequent news articles about company X having to pay Y millions or lost such and such money.
mypalmike 5y ago
* 1/1/2000
- bluGill 5y ago
  Actually 3 dates, that was one. 2000 was a leap year and lots of systems got that wrong. 9/9/1999 was sometimes used as a can't happen date as well.