Blame the victim. The reality is, it’s all about incentives. He is going to make a few million. If their security were great they’d still have gotten hacked. Everyone who knows anything about computers knows, where there’s a will there’s a way. You cannot stop a determined hacker. Full stop. The problem is there are great incentives and not enough deterrents. Bitcoin. This will only get worse until the public decides it’s had enough. I’m already there. It’s an education problem now.
Maybe not, but you can reduce the list of potential attackers from relatively average Joes to more experienced, specialised and well funded actors (such as the NSA - who would probably just issue a warrant anyway) with better security practises. It isn't ideal - someone might still access your data without your consent - but it is realistic and achievable.
> The problem is that there are great incentives and not enough deterrents.
Again, true, but that doesn't mean that the public should just live with this. It's not unreasonable to ask a company to take the security of their customers seriously and take steps to ensure that their data is secure from an attacker. There are other things that can be done: harsher penalties for companies who don't take issues like this seriously, setting out (and enforcing!) standards for security, incentivising security research, and so on. Are these suggestions achievable? Probably. Are they going to be achieved? Probably not. Are there a better ideas for solving this problem? Definitely, but I'm not smart enough to think of them. But just giving up and labelling this as an "education problem" is defeatist and doesn't help.
This is a really odd take to me. No, you may not get every single thing right, and if someone is really determined then they might get through. But does that mean you shouldn't put the effort in to make that as difficult as possible? Of course not.
What you're saying is essentially the equivalent of saying "If someone had a bulldozer they could smash through the wall into my house anyway, so I'm going to stop locking my doors and closing my windows when I'm out"
I’d rather live in a world where people don’t lock their doors. That world existed not long ago. What you see as normal and acceptable differs from my ideal.
The question I pose to you: how much is enough in a world with constantly escalating threat? I’d submit that locking doors is a reaction to somewhat static threat. Digital crime is accelerating due to changes in the feasibility and incentives for the criminal- more exploits and digital currencies that make it easy and low risk for the criminal. The more crime, the more value and “adoption” of the digital currencies, the more motivation and less risk for criminal. Not at all like locking your door. It’s a treadmill that will ultimately destroy the fabric of society.
We once lived in a world without door locks. We can choose our future. That’s the opposite of fatalism.
