3 ms·

The parent comment mentions issues with cybersecurity. There are measures companies can take to reduce their likelihood of breach, but we all know they humans m

The parent comment mentions issues with cybersecurity. There are measures companies can take to reduce their likelihood of breach, but we all know they humans make errors that are exploitable all the time. Just the other day there was a thread about an exploitable bit in the Linux kernel that had been there for the prior 10 years. My point is that unless the regulation we're discussing is merely marginal in cost of adoption, there will be definite harm caused to small businesses trying to bootstrap from the ground up. It's not some bogeyman of an argument. It is quite a real possibility.

jrm4 4y ago
Again, what you're saying is potentially and practically equivalent to: "If we put regulations on safety measures in new buildings, such as railings and fire escapes, it will hurt small businesses." Maybe it will. It's still not an intelligent point. Stop.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Surely there is a cost benefit analysis to be had regarding any regulation? It's not always as trivial as railing and fire escapes. What would the cost of building become if every building had to be built to withstand 9.0 magnitude earthquakes or be resistant to bunker-buster bombs? Such policies do a number of things: 1. Raise consumer costs since these new regulations need to pass the costs to the consumer. 2. Inhibit competition since now new businesses need to have to know-how or pay for super specialists or some external service to get them complaint before they can even offer a product or service. I'm not discounting all regulation, but at some point consumers can't consume blindly and need to be thoughtful. Some businesses may get third party certs stating they're compliant with industry leading security practices. They can charge a premium. Other companies may target more elastic consumers that want the service but don't care about whether their data, etc. is protected. They can choose to buy the products/services without certs, as they would likely he cheaper to differentiate themselves.

jrm4 4y ago

Again, what you're saying is potentially and practically equivalent to: "If we put regulations on safety measures in new buildings, such as railings and fire escapes, it will hurt small businesses." Maybe it will. It's still not an intelligent point. Stop.

hellojesus 4y ago
Surely there is a cost benefit analysis to be had regarding any regulation? It's not always as trivial as railing and fire escapes. What would the cost of building become if every building had to be built to withstand 9.0 magnitude earthquakes or be resistant to bunker-buster bombs? Such policies do a number of things: 1. Raise consumer costs since these new regulations need to pass the costs to the consumer. 2. Inhibit competition since now new businesses need to have to know-how or pay for super specialists or some external service to get them complaint before they can even offer a product or service. I'm not discounting all regulation, but at some point consumers can't consume blindly and need to be thoughtful. Some businesses may get third party certs stating they're compliant with industry leading security practices. They can charge a premium. Other companies may target more elastic consumers that want the service but don't care about whether their data, etc. is protected. They can choose to buy the products/services without certs, as they would likely he cheaper to differentiate themselves.