[fargle]

i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature.

and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.

[Dylan16807]

Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself.

(And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)

[fargle]

regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix.

i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.

[Dylan16807]

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

[fargle]

you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever.

the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

[Dylan16807]

> you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

> you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum.

We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy.

But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise.

> (cliche)

Are you trying to imply something there?

> you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.