Consumers are so numb to data breaches that these events now bring very little outrage. I think without that anger from the consumer, there's little incentive for companies to do more to stop data breaches from happening.
My concern was the complete opposite - I assume that my social security number and address are already for sale for a fraction of a cent somewhere, bundled with 10,000 other identities. But if money gets stolen, that's a whole rigamarole, with banks wringing their hands and saying "identity theft" as if that clears them from any responsibility.
Bank: "No, you see it was your identity that they stole!"
Customer: "Well I don't know because I seem to have my identity whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of dollars. I'm not clear why you think it's my identity that was stolen rather than your money."
When I need a legitimate large withdrawal, I can go through the required effort.
Most businesses don’t even accept cash anymore. Can’t get “hacked” although it’s prone to many other issues — space, humidity, physical theft.
For example, let's say you have $100k in savings. I think you would be absolutely bonkers to store that in some secret part of your (flammable! break-in-able!) house.
I guess you could put it in a safety deposit box, and if you needed to spend it in a non-cash way, you could walk it directly to the teller and deposit it and make it available? The equivalent of a cold wallet, I suppose.
Really? I've been using cash almost exclusively for the past several months and haven't had any real problems. Sure, the overpriced hipster vegan Thai place in the McMall district may not take cash, but the family-owned ramen restaurant a couple miles down the road is more than happy to do so. Personally I find the "won't take cash" attribute to be a strong indicator that the business isn't worth supporting.
(Nothing against Abu Dabi— I just picked a random place not under US jurisdiction where plenty of people have Escalade Platinum money.)
Start issuing multi billion dollar fines for these breaches and suddenly companies are invested in security.
Unfortunately with government agencies getting defanged as part of recent SCOTUS ruling, it’s likely not possible.
Have to rely on civil court to issue fines now (ie, class action lawsuits).
Good cyber security people are expensive because they are highly skilled: they typically need to have been a software engineer to understand software architectures and have intuition about them, have spent significant time sharpening their skills at hacking by participating in CTFs, and have probably also spent significant time doing reverse engineering and have a few CVEs attributed to them. (Why are these skills needed? Because they are the skills needed by the red team. Every company that takes cyber security seriously will have a red team.) Now tell me whether these people are worth $500,000 per year.
Where are you getting your information from? The levels of security negligence I hear about aren't even a big ask. Huge companies neglect to do basic things like "don't store your passwords in plain text" or "make sure you salt and hash your passwords".
I don't think it's fair to say cyber security teams are failing if companies are blatantly doing the worst and most obviously wrong things on the daily at the highest levels.