I really like the unlocked door analogy, but there seems to be some kind of disconnect in everyone's mind when it comes to "online" crimes.
Door locks are extremely "exploitable", but if a 16 year old were to use a bump key to gain access to PHPFog's corporate office and vandalize the place, all of the sudden it's a much bigger deal.
I have a theory that it has to do with familiarity and empathy. Door locks are a pretty standard solution. We all have them on our homes, and we think to ourselves, "I've done a reasonable job of securing my home." When someone's home/office is broken in to, we can easily identify with them. We look at the scenario and realize that we could easily suffer the same. We empathize with them.
Move the playing field to the Internet and all of the sudden everyone is expected to have Fort Knox level security. When someone's infrastructure is compromised, everyone stands atop the high hill, looking down on the drowning masses as the tide comes in, but the reality is that we're all vulnerable at some point.
A startup could easily spend as much on security as they do developing their core product. Why? As a startup, I'm not going to invest in double-reinforced steel doors, bullet proof glass windows, armed guards, and a centralized vault. That's wasted money in my view, because I have a reasonable expectation that people will act with civility. If someone does break in, I'm insured, and I will report the crime to authorities who will investigate. If the criminal is caught, there are real penalties, and they'll carry the stigma of having to check "YES" next to the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony" on their job applications.
I'm not saying we should try these kids as adults, but when I was 14, some kids who shared a bus stop with me broke in to a house near our bus stop and trashed the place. They got caught and suffered some severe penalties. It was a valuable lesson for everyone involved. A couple of the kids were from really bad homes and suffered from greater influences than the threat of the law, but the other two turned their act around really quickly. Had they gotten away with it, or had the attitude been "they're just kids", I'm not sure they would have realized the impact of the crimes they committed. I think we need more of this balance in our views of internet crimes.
Door locks are extremely "exploitable", but if a 16 year old were to use a bump key to gain access to PHPFog's corporate office and vandalize the place, all of the sudden it's a much bigger deal.
I have a theory that it has to do with familiarity and empathy. Door locks are a pretty standard solution. We all have them on our homes, and we think to ourselves, "I've done a reasonable job of securing my home." When someone's home/office is broken in to, we can easily identify with them. We look at the scenario and realize that we could easily suffer the same. We empathize with them.
Move the playing field to the Internet and all of the sudden everyone is expected to have Fort Knox level security. When someone's infrastructure is compromised, everyone stands atop the high hill, looking down on the drowning masses as the tide comes in, but the reality is that we're all vulnerable at some point.
A startup could easily spend as much on security as they do developing their core product. Why? As a startup, I'm not going to invest in double-reinforced steel doors, bullet proof glass windows, armed guards, and a centralized vault. That's wasted money in my view, because I have a reasonable expectation that people will act with civility. If someone does break in, I'm insured, and I will report the crime to authorities who will investigate. If the criminal is caught, there are real penalties, and they'll carry the stigma of having to check "YES" next to the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony" on their job applications.
I'm not saying we should try these kids as adults, but when I was 14, some kids who shared a bus stop with me broke in to a house near our bus stop and trashed the place. They got caught and suffered some severe penalties. It was a valuable lesson for everyone involved. A couple of the kids were from really bad homes and suffered from greater influences than the threat of the law, but the other two turned their act around really quickly. Had they gotten away with it, or had the attitude been "they're just kids", I'm not sure they would have realized the impact of the crimes they committed. I think we need more of this balance in our views of internet crimes.