3 ms·
It's a simple argument, but it's interesting if you extend it to securing personal information in the cloud. The amount you pay a company to store your data (i
by aneesh 18y ago
It's a simple argument, but it's interesting if you extend it to securing personal information in the cloud. The amount you pay a company to store your data (incl per-capita ad revenue they make from you) is effectively a cap on the amount they'll spend to secure it.
- jodrellblank 18y agoThe chemical company's situation is different - the people who care about an attack (nearby people) and the people acting on the reputation (customers) are different, so there is incentive for the nearby people to pay towards their own protection. The attack is rare and unlikely so sympathy is high as long as the company is putting "reasonable" measures in place. Cloud data theft - the people who care about the attack (customers) are the same people acting on the reputation, so the reputation hit matters more. Such attacks are common and predictable, so sympathy will be lower. People nearby aren't involved so there is no incentive for anyone else to pay to protect your data. Knock on economic effect is spread much more widely over more systems and so is less intense and more difficult to gague, and you'd be taking time off work and using your weekends to sort it out so it would have less impact. So the cloud company has incentive to spend more on security than you might think, if they judge the reputation boost will help future earnings enough. It may do so where it may not for the chemical company.