Originally posted by WC_Sage
View Post
The problem is that consumers don't shop for "security" (or even reliability, for that matter!

Developers know this. In brainstorming sessions for new products, the conversation always centers on these two issues -- with a token mention of "security" (as if merely mentioning it is sufficient to ensure it is "present").
Their notion of the types of threats they may face is naive. And, their solutions are equally so ("Why can't you just use my thumbprint?" "Um, what happens when someone discovers how to HACK your thumbprint? Will you swap it out for a NEW THUMB?? Or, your voice? Face? etc.")
Folks want "easy to remember passwords" -- despite the fact that this makes them EASIER TO CRACK. They don't want to have to remember multiple passwords for multiple accounts/devices (because that's inconvenient!) so once a password for a device/account is "compromised", its likely that all other accounts/devices will be compromised. (The look on my friends' faces when I "crack" their password in a few minutes -- while they WATCH -- is always entertaining: "You mean, that's all it takes? Even though my password was 10 characters and kind of random/unpronounceable???")
They don't want to run wires cuz that's costly, time consuming and "not convenient" ("Why can't I just PLUG IT IN??"). They don't want to have to keep changing batteries (because that's inconvenient -- just look at how many smoke detectors have been idled while their owners are remembering to replace the battery). And, they don't want to have those silly wall-warts all over the place in lieu of batteries because that's unsightly (inconvenient to look at).
They don't want to continuously monitor (hacks are discovered every day!) all of their devices for security flaws thinking the manufacturer will do that (and the low retail price for the item will INCLUDE that service, FOREVER!). And, when a flaw is discovered and they eventually learn about it, they're annoyed that they have to replace their device(s) because a "patch" is not available. And, aren't technically savvy enough to understand why a patch may not even be possible for that problem on that product. (if the vendor makes this claim, the user thinks the vendor is just trying to "sell him something else" instead of standing behind his original product)
When a product is pitched to you as "convenient" or "inexpensive", you should first ask what you're silently forfeiting FOR that convenience/pricing.
Comment