"Security" and "Convenience" is always a tradeoff, you can never have both.
You can get secure and easy-to-use tools, but they typically have to be really simple things.
There are good middle grounds, but most package managers don't even acknowledge other concerns as valid.
I don't think security was traded away for convenience. Everything started with convenience, and security has been trying to gain ground ever since.
>happen for people to start taking security seriously
Law with enforced and non-trivial consequences are the only thing that will force people to take security seriously. And even then, most probably still wont.
Security is good, but occasionally I wonder if technical people don't imagine fantastic scenarios of evil masterminds doing something with the data and manage to rule the world.
While in reality, at least the last 5 years there are so many leaders (and people) doing and saying so plainly stupid that I feel we should be more afraid of stupid people than of hackers.
Society works by agreements and laws, not by (absolute) secrecy.
There are of course instances like electrical grid stopping for days, people being killed remotely in hospitals, nuclear plants exploding, that would have a different impact and we might get there, just that it did not happen yet.
It’s similar to how most people are distressed after a break-in, because they considered their home to be a private space, even though the lock manufacturer never claimed 100% security (or the thieves simply bypassed the locks by smashing a window).
Agreements and laws don’t solve that problem, because thieves already aren’t stopped by those.