|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Security quotes of the week

It's not difficult to see the path this is likely to head down, and it's bad. A few countries force Google/Facebook to pay these old school publishers. Then, basically everyone else on the web notices this and says "hey, how come they get to link to me for free? Shouldn't they be paying me too?!?" And then, one by one, we'll just hear of every failed and flopped industry demanding free money from the companies that actually innovated. The music industry must be so excited. Book publishing? Absolutely. What about boxed software providers (hi, Microsoft!).

Basically, every industry that failed to adapt and innovate online is likely to go running to government demanding payment. And the very nature of the open internet ceases to exist the way it has for the past three decades. It's a terrible, terrible idea, and it was ridiculous that it went ahead in Australia. But Microsoft is an actual tech company, which should know better, but it's trollish obsession with Google beating Microsoft in the market means it's willing to toss out the open internet if it thinks it will harm Google.

It's shameful and disgusting.

Mike Masnick

There is no good reason to underspend on security other than to save money — especially when your clients include government agencies around the world and when the technology experts that you pay to advise you are telling you to do more.

As the economics writer Matt Stoller has suggested, cybersecurity is a natural area for a technology company to cut costs because its customers won’t notice unless they are hacked ­– and if they are, they will have already paid for the product. In other words, the risk of a cyberattack can be transferred to the customers. Doesn’t this strategy jeopardize the possibility of long-term, repeat customers? Sure, there’s a danger there –­ but investors are so focused on short-term gains that they’re too often willing to take that risk.

The market loves to reward corporations for risk-taking when those risks are largely borne by other parties, like taxpayers. This is known as “privatizing profits and socializing losses.” Standard examples include companies that are deemed “too big to fail,” which means that society as a whole pays for their bad luck or poor business decisions. When national security is compromised by high-flying technology companies that fob off cybersecurity risks onto their customers, something similar is at work.

Bruce Schneier

to post comments

Security quotes of the week

Posted Mar 4, 2021 16:30 UTC (Thu) by Trou.fr (subscriber, #26289) [Link]

I think Mike Masnick's point is based on a wrong premise: Google and Facebook do not merely *link* to articles, they ingest and display titles + summaries to users, effectively keeping the user on their platform for most of the time.

Google has been doing this more and more by providing "smart" extracts and answers in Google search, effectively using content produced by others on their own infrastructure.

So I believe things are not that black and white...

Security quotes of the week

Posted Mar 5, 2021 4:09 UTC (Fri) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

I think the attempt at drawing a line from news services to publishing services (music, book, software) is misguided.

The issue here is advertising revenue. News services have always got the bulk of their revenue from advertising. The mentioned publishing services get the bulk of their revenue from sales.

Google/Facebook don't "steal" the sales (though Amazon might). They do take the advertising dollars.

This doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with the conclusion - I honestly don't know. I deliberately ignore all advertising and pay for the news that I read (mostly through taxes - abc.net.au/news is AWESOME) so I'm not part of the equation at all. It just means that the argument is wrong. And if the best argument you can come up with is a wrong one .....

Security quotes of the week

Posted Mar 5, 2021 10:09 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

In the original form, I think the link is there - the intent was that Google and Facebook would pay all news services, regardless of which ones they actually linked to. In effect, a tax was suggested on any tech firm linking to news sites that would be distributed to all news services in Australia; so a link from Google to abc.net.au/news would require Google to pay News Corp Australia on the basis that Google could have chosen to link to a News Corp property instead of ABC.

That form, I think, is not a misguided link from news services to publishing services; the claim was being made that because Google *could* have chosen to link to News Corp, but instead linked to a competitor, Google somehow owed News Corp revenue. The new form breaks that link, because it (among other good changes) allows Google to refuse to pay News Corp, but at the expense of no longer being allowed to link to News Corp properties.


Copyright © 2021, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds