The concept of Cyber Security and it's implementation is by and large, if not entirely, a fools errand.
Take for example common house hold security of the 80's. The common house has a pin-tumbler lock; which is almost trivial to pick open. The same can be said for the dead bolt in the door. Beyond that, there may be a safe in the house, of a certain difficulty to bypass; but, generally, in situations like these, it's the state of the surrounding community, that ultimately determines whether one is to be a victim of theft or crime. And that's an issue of health and well being on the macroscopic scale.
You can ramp things up to the level of mom and pop businesses, and again, you have the same situation, a trivial to defeat locking mechanism, maybe, _maybe_, some kind of intrusion alert system, and again, just a safe. So again, here, it's the state of the surrounding community that ultimately determines the state of the, 'security.'
So in the above two examples; what is the best option for the occupants or owners of the businesses? Should they, 'beef up security,?' They could; but, that has overhead costs, competencies in managing the security, and the systems of security implementation have vulnerabilities themselves. It's always an arms race. You buy a gun to protect yourself; but, your neighbor does the same, so the playing field is immediately equalized.
Security, and it's implementations, are a fools errand, because it is another cure for symptoms, and not causes. Why do we need security, and from whom? Who's going to implement it, and how? Who's going to maintain it, and how do we assure ourselves they aren't irresponsible assholes?
In order to make any technology that is usable and understandable by mere mortals; it has to be insecure by nature. That's one. Two, in order for companies to continue to be able to profit from the technology they are creating, it has to rob people of some of their autonomy, or at least compel them to choose to surrender it, with the threat of Luditism, that's two. The universal and constant output of insecure technology, therefore creates a greater and greater need for experts to deal with the constant intrusions and thefts. That's three. The more and more experts there are, the more and more intrusions are detected, and thus, the problem seems bigger than it would have, if they weren't there, because only they can understand these things and their causes. That's four. They can't do anything about the causes, because they are the employees of the very companies and systems that designed the insecure products in the first place. That's five. And lastly, we come full circle, it all feeds into itself; the more and more problems there are, the more and more money there is to be made by the, _experts_, who are the only ones who can even understand the problem. That's six.
So anyone who is aware of this, is either on their way out by some one else's account, or will soon find themselves so fed up they will leave; but, the problem with that is, the old adage: there is a sucker born every minute. So whoever leaves the game, is easily replaced. This article is proof of the propaganda that a fresh new batch of suckers is needed; the old guard is fed up with the game and the surface area has increased, which means more widgets need to be sold, or are seeking to be sold. So the system feeds back into itself. This is the same mechanism by which economic balloons blow up, and pop. It's a suckers game, for everyone, except the people who have rigged it or have dug deep enough to see it for what it is, a game: and that isn't likely to be you.
Locking your front door, has been, and largely is, more of a privacy measure. And whether some one trespasses or not, has more to do with the over all health of the society and the state of mind of it's inhabitants. Full stomachs are less likely to pilfer from grocery stores. Satisfied husbands and wives are less likely to go looking for thrills elsewhere. Have-nots are less likely to take from haves if they don't feel as though they have-not. Ignorance is less likely to be found in places where higher thought is valued and nurtured.
The ultimate game-over scenario, for those with the money to do so, is to have a fortified compound, with 2 to 10 years of non-perishable food supplies, a secure perimeter, guns and ammo, and yablahblah. Basically a fort stocked with all the types of things only a fully functioning society can maintain. And that's not living; that's just not dying, perhaps, for a certain amount of time. And at best, it ensures survival for long enough to eek out a meager agriculture existence; and at the worst, it will look like a real life game of Left4Dead, at some point. IMO, this is not the type of scenario that has been well thought out by those implementing it. It may be well planned; but, the goal is to design a ship that won't ever need to make use of the life boats; not make shitty ocean liners so you can capitalize on life boat sales, and flotation devices. lol.
And that's the game. And largely, people will continue to play it. Perhaps they have stake in the game. Perhaps they see no other games available that are better. Or, they don't feel the have a choice. Who knows...
Game on!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
