Reply to post: Re: It beggards belief

Bluetooth privacy is mostly ignored, so you're beaming yourself to the world


Re: It beggards belief


First up, I appreciate the fact that you didn't down-vote me simply because you disagreed with me. Not that I care much (else I wouldn't comment on climate change articles) but it is nice to know that we can discuss things with civility.

To the point, the problem is that people do expect that things are more-or-less okay. At least they do in the absence of specific knowledge in the given field. Even in IT-circles, we have assumed that certain things are well-made. Hell - look at the bugs with SSL. We, in IT, assumed that, as SSL is open and thus able to be independently examined, that people had done so and continued to do so.

No sooner have we started to get some sleep and . . . Logjam. Not a 'bug' per se but an issue born of sites and companies not using a sufficient level of security. Again, this came as a surprise to most of us. I am sure someone reading this predicted it but most of us were caught out here.

If we, in IT, are naive enough to simply trust SSL because we assume that someone must have verified everything, then who are we to look down on non-IT folks (i.e.: 'normal' people) for believing that the products they buy are suitably made?

And, even putting all that aside, consumers should have a right to expect that the products they buy are fit for purpose.

Just to be clear on that, it is my belief that any device that generates, accesses, stores or transmits personal information should - as a top priority - endeavour to secure that data and prevent unauthorised access to it. If one encounters a device that gathers personal data but does not take appropriate steps to secure it then that device is not fit for purpose, any more than an easily-picked door lock is suitable for purpose.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon