Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rhapso | Hacker News Reader

Honestly is is just like Insurance. You understand the value of things you are protecting (and simple compliance has a value to you in penalties and liabilities avoided) and make sure it costs more than that to break into your system.

At a corporate level, it is contractually almost identical to insurance, with the product being sold liability for that security, not the security itself.

View on HN

Right. I sometimes call it meta-level insurance, because it's structurally what it is. Funnily, actual insurance is a critical part of it - it's the ultimate liability sink, discharging whatever liability that didn't get diluted and diffused among all relevant parties.

And, I guess it's fine - it's the general way of dealing with impact that can be fully converted into dollars (i.e. that doesn't cause loss of life or health).

It’s really not fine. Expensive and useless security theater isn’t just inefficient and corrupt, it’s way more actively harmful than that because there’s a huge opportunity cost associated with all the wasted time and money AND the incentivized deliberate refusal to make obviously good/easy/cheap improvements. Even in matters pertaining purely to dollars.. Spreading out liability can’t erase injury completely. it just pushes it onto the tax payer because someone is paying the judge to sit in the chair and listen to the insurance people and the lawyers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com