That's why I think there should be legal and social consequences for data breaches. The public treats IT like it is magic... a black art (as opposed to science), dangerous/volatile, and expected to blow up in your face once-in-awhile. Nobody treats bridges that way--everyone understands you can't cut safety out of a budget for a bridge and that you have to take precautions.
Businesses don't treat IT failures like they do an oil spill, but they should. It's a spill of information, and information is extremely valuable.
I know of a college's root password stored in plain text file on a PUBLICLY accessible url so "new computers can install ghost copies quicker." I know of companies actually using "password" for their password. I know companies that deny access to copy-and-paste on remote desktop, refuse to use e-mail because it's insecure, but are fine with me using a domain administrator account to do my work.
The reason businesses don't care about security is two reasons. 1) They're not afraid and people and the laws should make them afraid so it becomes cost-effective to care. 2) The IT field is full of bullshitters so even when people do hire IT, they assume the guy they hire understands security. When most companies only need one IT guy, they have no experienced guy on hand to tell them if the guy if full of crap. I'm a software developer and I had to teach one admin how Kerberos authentication works and how to resolve issues with it, and another thought that intranet ip addresses were somehow accessible from the web.
However, with the IoT, the situation is mark darker. The IoT is a movement. If it cannot get good market penetration fast, it dies out. So people know that IoT is inherently dangerous but they don't have the time and resources to make them secure and solve those problems so they bank on, and hope for, that nobody ever notices so they can sell enough of their products to keep the market going. People buy features, but security only matters if someone finds out.
The IoT is the NSA's wet dream. Why spy on Americans when you can willingly get them to sign a EULA that lets their Smart TV keep the microphone on 24/7? (This has already happened.) And worse still, if the NSA can do it, so can any government. And people are so stupid they're willingly giving up their privacy just so they can "keep up with the tech Joneses" for a gadget that doesn't even improve their lives in any significant way.
I like to call it "Leading By Conjecture."
Businesses measure a few things (namely money) and then make the insane mistake of thinking that just because they measure something they have all of the variables required for their desired output. They change the variables they have measured (almost always relating to reducing spending and hours) and they assume their total costs will go down. They assume things like employee moral, employee comfort, and amount of bureaucracy are unimportant... well, assume is the wrong word because most of them never consider those things to begin with, and the others dismiss it as pessimism.
Many companies are the equivalent of MRAPs. Big, powerful tanks that are prone to overloading bridges, or tipping over like a toy, because nobody bothered to think about all the variables... they were trying to solve one problem in isolation, "stop IEDs."
It took all of 5 seconds to load the page and read that:
The game is set in a futuristic world where decades of poaching has knocked Earth’s ecosystem off-kilter and left the planet a barren dessert. The last hope for restoration involves sending a cyborg back in time to hunt the poachers.
Your stopping poachers to save humanity.
And if you can use backstory to allow people kill thousands of demons, zombies, sentient robots, nazis and communists; why the hell are poachers any different? What makes the games you played so magically okay? Did you blow up Megaton in Fallout 3? Because then by your own logic you're now just encouraged nuclear terrorism.
Get off your damn high horses and realize it's not 1995, you're not Jack Thompson, and video games don't encourage people to kill people.
That's the entire point. AMD is changing things without your knowledge and not publicly letting you use them for other programs. Imagine writing software and you discover that the filename of the game you're working on changes the performance AND introduces graphics glitches. Somehow the debug copy goes twice as fast. That's sketchy as hell for someone trying to write software.
Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Likewise, in most societies, Freedom of Speech is a cultural law. It's assumed. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was from Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906. Going all the way back, Athens, had the Freedom of Speech in the 5th century B.C.. The Romans also had Freedom of Speech. It's also apart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and binding on all UN member states.
Just because the USA government's constitution only protects the Freedom of Speech from itself, doesn't mean it's not fucking important, worth fighting for, or a real thing outside of the government interactions.
Moreover, Freedom of Speech does move into the private sector in certain situations. Such as the landmark Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins case of 1980. In California, per their additional state constitutional wording, you can exercise your right to free speech in private shopping centers as long as you are peaceful. Many states have similar wording but have not followed as they are worried about the implications. But the point remains, the idea that "Freedom of Speech" means nothing except with regard to the USA federal government is a stupid lie.