How could you possibly make it illegal to host insecure services? Is any service 100% secure? And if it were how would we know?

I do agree with the audit and punishments for clear failure to adhere to established standards.

▲

bawolff 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a solved problem in pretty much every other domain of life - if you are following best practises but something that wasn't reasonably forseeable happens, then you're fine, but if the bad thing happens as a result of negligence then you are in trouble.

▲

jameshart 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Criminal law isn't about making things alright for the victim. That's what insurance is for.

Even if you leave your door unlocked, if someone walks in and steals your stuff, it's a crime. The state has an interest in prosecuting crimes even if the victim didn't do everything they could to prevent it.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Criminal law isn't about making things alright for the victim Restitution and retribution are the components of justice [1] entirely about "making things alright for the victim." [1] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justi...
	▲	bawolff 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The company is not the victim here. Its users are. [I suppose my previous comment was a bit ambigious - i meant something bad happens to someone else not to yourself] A better version of your analogy would be if your landlord failed to repair your front door in a reasonable period of time and as a result soneone walked in and stole your stuff. Yes the theif is the primary responsible party, but the landlords negligence in maintaining the property probably also exposes them to some liability. P.s. This is neither here nor there, but restitution is a part of criminal law.

▲

isityettime 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Best practice" in cybersecurity is largely vendor-driven with little to no independent empirical validation.

That standard is likely to lock people into buying some pretty bad software, but it does little to ensure that they're running reasonably secure systems.

▲

SoftTalker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like to relate it to operating an automobile. You can follow every traffic law and still be liable in an accident, because you owned the vehicle that caused the damage. This is why you have insurance.

▲

MagicMoonlight 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In civil law maybe, but you aren’t allowed to blame a rape victim for choosing to walk down rape alley…

▲

hsbauauvhabzb 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No building has a 100% chance of not caving in, yet somehow I think charges would be laid if a skyscraper caved in.

▲

sieve 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The equivalent analogy is charging lock/door/drywall/timber makers and suppliers for lapses if a thief entered the house by picking a lock or drilling/sawing through the wall.

▲

jameshart 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This analogy seems to be portraying 'ransomware hackers' as an unstoppable force of nature akin to gravity.

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy.

	▲	ryandrake 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The other side of that spectrum portrays the service providers as pure, negligence-free victims. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.