Hacker News Reader

Comment by imagist | Hacker News Reader

> My immediate reaction is "Of course". A return on investment or risk analysis should drive activities on both the corporate and the government level.

You're looking at this in only monetary terms, or at least Yahoo is. But frankly, I don't give a fuck about whether Yahoo succeeds financially--I want my life and the lives of other people to be better. And I want that to be the goal of my government.

> But this isn't a big, bad, greedy corporate problem.

Of course it's a big, bad, greedy corporate problem. The reason "return on investment" matters in a financial sense is because big, bad, greedy corporations only care about their bottom line. And quite frequently Yahoo's bottom line is in direct opposition to improving my life and the lives of other people.

View on HN

>... But frankly, I don't give a fuck about whether Yahoo succeeds financially--I want my life and the lives of other people to be better. And I want that to be the goal of my government.

In this situation it doesn't matter that yahoo is a private corporation - the same cost/benefit analysis essentially needs to be done no matter what the structure of the organization. Let's pretend that email had been created by a government agency and that agency has to decide how much of the budget to spend on security. If it costs X dollars to make something 90% secure, 10X for 95% secure and 10,000X for 99.9999% secure, etc etc eventually you have to choose how much to spend - resources aren't infinite for that government agency either. (And to make it much more difficult, they just have a guess that X dollars will make their product N% secure.) It isn't as black and white as you are trying to portray it.

I think it is fair to criticize yahoo for how the prioritized security but the same kind of issue has happened with non-profit companies and with government organizations, so no, it isn't just a "big, bad, greedy corporate problem."

You're the one trying to make it black and white, he's simply saying that unlike private industry, government can have another motive be primary rather than profit, i.e. help it citizens as the primary goal. Yea, budgets aren't unlimited, but not having to be profitable makes a huge difference in which actions can be taken. Profit is not the correct goal for every action that can be taken by an organization, government isn't a business.

If "profit" is defined as: "generating more value than is consumed in the production process"...

Then yes, we damn well better demand that profit be the correct goal for every action regardless of organizational structure.

If our system is distorted to inaccurately measure profit locally, without properly accounting for negative externalities, then that's a legitimate problem, but the way to solve it is by factoring those hidden costs back into the profit calculation, not giving up on "profitability" properly defined.

If profit is defined as $income - $expenses = $profit, then you'd be using the word the way everyone else is using it, and you'd be participating productively in the conversation.

I know this is snarky, but: tell it to the OMB.

Corporations do not have any sort of exclusive lock on cost-benefit analysis.

Edit: including bad cost-benefit analysis.

  > ... government can have another motive be primary 
  > rather than profit, i.e. help it citizens as the 
  > primary goal.

But there's still ROI here, and there's still a budget (no matter how big the deficit gets). So the question remains: how do I spend that money? Do I spend all of it on security apparatuses, or do I have to scale back and spend some on other social services? How much? What's the best bang for my buck?

Given the current state of computer security, a government program that fines companies for poor security practices could easily pay for itself.

> budgets aren't unlimited, but not having to be profitable makes a huge difference in which actions can be taken.

Profits are still required for gov't spending, but they are just made by someone else in the country and transferred to the gov't via taxation. Even deficit spending is just the choice to spend money today that will be obtained from taxation at a later date.

I'm looking at this in quantitative terms. Money is one measure. Effort, time, security, and others may be harder to quantify, but they're still important factors. "Security at any cost" quickly becomes simply impossible.

This is the general sense. Yahoo is probably on the "wrong" side of average.

But in some sense, you can vote with your feet. Companies who don't value security won't get your business. If enough people feel as you do, then the ROI calculation changes. And the same applies to politics as well: if you think more money should be spent on security and there's a societal good here, write to your congressman, or elect one who's receptive. Again, if enough people feel as you do, the political ROI makes this an imperative as well.

The fiction of markets is that costs and value can be reasonably determined. The truth is that in far too many instances, they cannot. Surface appearances or gross misbeliefs drive costing or valuation models and behavior, and as a consequence, goods are tremendously disvalued.

That's on top of the problems of externalities in which the costs or benefits aren't fully contained to the producer or consumer of a particular good or service.

A misprioritisation of values is what the drunk waking up with a hangover, the sweet-tooth spending 40 years dealing with systemic effects of diabetes, or the smoker suffering 20 years of emphysema and COPD comes to realise. The externalities are the drink-driving victim, the socialised medical costs (and privitised profits of the sugar firms), and the 2nd and tertiary smoke victims.

There are rather larger issues far more fundamental than these in the modern industrial economic system, but I'll spare you that lecture.

The point being that trusting on "the market" to offer corrections simply doesn't work.

>The reason "return on investment" matters in a financial sense is because big, bad, greedy corporations only care about their bottom line.

I would argue that it's ALL corporations that only care about their bottom line. The entire reason a corporation exists is to make money, any other considerations like employee well-being, care for the environment, etc are driven entirely by either legal requirements or a need to retain talent in order to make that money. Any corporation who successfully projects an image of being "different" just has a good marketing team.

Or they’re just a small-to-medium-business with a consistent set of ethics? Ever thought about that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com