Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sounds like a really great way to potentially destroy someone's career if they aren't terribly competent and you are. Infect some component in their home network that they don't even know is smart-enabled, and keep breaching their new devices, adding them to an active and conspicuous botnet. The only recourse for average Joe is to find expert help, which isn't really in abundant supply if you are a semi-sophisticated malicious actor.

I don't even want to think about the ramifications for small and medium sized businesses. Realistically, how much would it cost to be able to completely destroy a local competitor by paying someone to orchestrate a few events in succession.




This is an odd argument. The net is currently broken in many ways. One of the many ways is fake negative reviews. They easily destroy small businesses.

As I understand your argument, because the net has solid endpoints we can identify and isolate, we should ignore that fact. Instead we should create more and more complex systems to work around bad actors?

Bad actor takes control of grandma's computer. We should do all sorts of things except stop talking to grandma's computer? The thing, I would suspect, that most people would expect?

Businesses suffer from too much transparency. Got that part. They buy things that don't work and sometimes hurt people, even if they don't intend to do this. So far, so good. Where is the part where new businesses models are supposed to exist because some people made bad choices and the current models don't work? Why don't we just publicize the bad choices and let things work themselves out?

Sorry. Missing it.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: