Not sure how useful this will be.
News outlets fights amongst other news outlets to get the most attention and clicks.
Surely if you teach kids a recipe on how to spot questionnable sources, these sources will adapt to look legitimate.
News outlets fights amongst other news outlets to get the most attention and clicks.
Surely if you teach kids a recipe on how to spot questionnable sources, these sources will adapt to look legitimate.
I guess we shouldn’t patch security holes in any software, either. Attackers will just spend increasing amounts of effort to find new ones. It’s not worth developing vaccines for any diseases, either. They’ll just adapt. Why lock your car or your house? Determined people can pick the lock, or just break a window.
There is absolutely no benefit to be found in raising the bar so that the stupidest, low-effort attacks no longer work. None at all.
I think my concern here is that this course would give the students a false sense of safety since they now have a recipe they can apply to "filter out the junk" making them blind the next evolution.
I also don't think your analogies fully grasp the matter (alt ought they are really good examples of "races to the bottom").
A more relevant analogy would be akin too: "Should we teach students about known vulnerabilities when attackers keep discovering new ones?".
To that my answer is, I'm not sure. There are a lot of vulnerabilities, and going over each known one would take a considerable amount of time. Perhaps spending more time learning other facets of software development would be a better a better use of time.