[lcw]

I think you meant to refer to drizly. I would say this is an example of a company that put their priorities on growth rather than security and it worked out for them. It sounds like Drizly didn't think about security at all, and in the end it cost them 0.6% (worst case they settled for $7M and were aquired for over $1.1B) of their value. Looks like their executive team prioritized the right things to me.

Making a decision for or against more security is more about risk mitigation. If the courts are just going to slap companies on the wrists for data breaches I don't see a strong argument for intense security protocols for your run of the mill e-commerce business.

[lrvick]

Ha ha. Yes. Drizly is what I meant to say. Too late to edit now.

I would say it caused them reputational harm as well. It would have likely been a lot less trouble to just hire a capable security engineer or two and do some basics.

To your point, we need these things to hurt a lot more, but it is a start.

[thunky]

People have been conditioned to ignore security. Too many big public incidents, too many emails telling them their data was exposed. They don't care anymore.

I think you're fighting an uphill battle here.

[lrvick]

It took something like 100 years to normalize washing hands in the medical industry. I am in this for the long game.