I don't see what is this difference you are making between "trusting" and "chancing" your data with them - from where I'm sitting, trusting is precisely that, namely you are willing to chance your data with them [because you trust them].
The part with "more eyes on them" really sounds like a delegation of responsibility to the group and that tends to end up in tears almost always - the "too big to fail" and the "the others did it too" and so on. Basically the "more eyes on them" never works since everyone assumes sooner or later - naturally and unavoidably since it's the most cost-effective strategy - that all the other eyes are watching so that they can...chance it.
Just a coder and a dad. I love my family and I love to code!!!! started coding at 11, so I have 25 years under my belt. Still love learning about it every day. Black lives matter!
Fair enough. To to be clear, I know for a fact that no one's data is secure online. Period. The best security can still be out smarted. It's been proven. I use companies that I like and I chance my data with them. I do not trust them. It's like gambling. I don't spend my $100 bucks because I trust that I will get more back, but I take a chance because it's fun to play. In this scenario, I swap out "fun" with "it helps me in my daily life". I don't assume my data is safe online nor trust them. I can chance my life skydiving for the thrill of adventure, doesn't mean I trust I'll survive.
Sure, there is no "secure data" online, I fully agree there. Following the gambling analogy, any surprise at "listening on you without permission" is similar to being surprise that the house always wins in the long-term.
Just a coder and a dad. I love my family and I love to code!!!! started coding at 11, so I have 25 years under my belt. Still love learning about it every day. Black lives matter!
I don't see what is this difference you are making between "trusting" and "chancing" your data with them - from where I'm sitting, trusting is precisely that, namely you are willing to chance your data with them [because you trust them].
The part with "more eyes on them" really sounds like a delegation of responsibility to the group and that tends to end up in tears almost always - the "too big to fail" and the "the others did it too" and so on. Basically the "more eyes on them" never works since everyone assumes sooner or later - naturally and unavoidably since it's the most cost-effective strategy - that all the other eyes are watching so that they can...chance it.
Fair enough. To to be clear, I know for a fact that no one's data is secure online. Period. The best security can still be out smarted. It's been proven. I use companies that I like and I chance my data with them. I do not trust them. It's like gambling. I don't spend my $100 bucks because I trust that I will get more back, but I take a chance because it's fun to play. In this scenario, I swap out "fun" with "it helps me in my daily life". I don't assume my data is safe online nor trust them. I can chance my life skydiving for the thrill of adventure, doesn't mean I trust I'll survive.
Sure, there is no "secure data" online, I fully agree there. Following the gambling analogy, any surprise at "listening on you without permission" is similar to being surprise that the house always wins in the long-term.
ha ha that is a good way to put it "house always wins". It's like the "Antitrust" movie.