Many technologists fail to appreciate that security is not something which businesses want to provide at all margins. (Consumers are similar; they're unwilling to literally or figuratively pay for security at all margins, too.)
-
Show this thread
-
However, since security is a sacred value, you're not really encouraged to voice aloud the necessary consequence of this, which is that e.g. there's some level of account takeovers or fraudulent claims or bank robberies which are acceptable losses (to be distributed somehow).
3 replies 0 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
"You're being facetious about bank robberies, Patrick" No I'm not. The direct cost of them is clustered around $8k per, which is less than the minimum buy-in for a lawsuit, which is why Don't Be A Hero is the first thing every bank employee learns at every training about this.
2 replies 3 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
Society distributes the cost of bank robberies thus: To deter potential scalable robberies, there is a bit of private investment in looking secure and some public investment in making "career bank robber" and "career prisoner" effectively synonymous. Losses? Bank pays, the end.
4 replies 2 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @patio11
At the end of the day, wouldn't the consumers pay? Similar to how retailers bake the costs of shoplifting into store prices, I'd imagine banks factor that into their service/account fees.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In the same sense that customers pay for toilet paper, sure.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.