3 ms·
The UL example is one where it would be hard for improved security to happen by itself. UL was founded to solve for fire risk when insuring buildings. It receiv
by cjalmeida 3y ago
The UL example is one where it would be hard for improved security to happen by itself. UL was founded to solve for fire risk when insuring buildings. It received funding from underwriters that would benefit from the label.
I don't see any particular entity benefiting from security labels - it's a problem of the "commons" where you generally need government intervention of some sort of.
- CodeWriter23 3y agoYou can't see the consumer benefitting from a certification label? Interesting. Also, the vendor benefits by gaining more sales.
- agloe_dreams 3y agoI'm not sure you are following them. The UL was funded by the Insurance companies. Their point was that there was some organized, rich entity to pay for the costs of operation as they had a financial stake.
- pbronez 3y agoYes, the consumer would benefit. But Consumers are not a concrete interest group like “property insurers”. They lack the concentration of economic power need to cover the costs.
- theptip 3y agoI think the way to make this proposal work is to pass legislation to actually have meaningful financial liability for data breaches. IFF companies have financial liability, then the market can be expected to find a cost-effective solution. Without any selection pressure though, there is no reason tho think the market will spend resources to solve this. Users empirically don’t understand security, don’t price it appropriately in advance, and aren’t able to evaluate the security qualities even if they do want to pay more for a “secure” product.