You can paint me as an overdramatic security person all you like, but it's really quite the opposite. I'd just like developers to think more about reducing harm

You can paint me as an overdramatic security person all you like, but it's really quite the opposite. I'd just like developers to think more about reducing harm to users. > to place anything on the chopping block in the name of security. Straw man argument. I absolutely am not a "security maximalist", nor am I unwilling to make tradeoffs - any competent security professional makes them all the time. > the #1 way to improve security is to reduce complexity Not really, no. Even if "complexity" were a defined term I don't think you'd be able to support this. Python's pickle makes things really simple - you just dump an object out, and you can load it up again later. Would you call that secure? It's a rhetorical question, to be clear, I'm not interested in debate on this. > I refuse to accept a doom-and-gloom the-cancer-which-is-killing-software perspective on this approach OK. I commented publicly that I believe developers should care more about harm to users. You can do with that what you like. Let's end it here? I don't think we're going to agree on much.