Mandated security devices. The problem with mandating a specific security device is dangerous from a technological point of view. It is quite possible that someone could determine that a fatal flaw exists in the security design that cannot be easily fixed without modification locally. That would be hard to correct if that process (of modifying the setup or code) was illegal.

Let me skip the house analogy and introduce another one I have been thinking about. Let's say a hacker breaks into a bank's network and steals all the money from Mr. Anderson’s account ($89,000) by exploiting a hole in a Windows server. You can insert Linux server if you like. Let's also assume many safe guards are in place but somehow the hacker manages to bypass all devices and by the time the error is known (a day or even a few hours), the money is already wired to another account and drained. At this point the money is gone and cannot be recovered. By arguments heard on this forum I would come to the conclusion that the bank is NOT liable for the missing 89,000 dollars. That is absolutely not true. There can be only 2 outcomes from this situation. The bank recovers Mr. Anderson's account through emergency funds that cover a loss, or the bank now finds it's assets in bankruptcy court.

Businesses ARE liable for not securing their assets. Sure you can leave the door unlocked if you want, but you and your business will pay in the end if disaster strikes. There is no insurance for negligence. Having said that: in my opinion the government has no business regulating private industry regarding their electronic security principles. That is a fundamental aspect of our Democratic society and any major shift in that aspect changes our basic society principles. This isn’t about cars or physical objects, this is about our communication and speech. Having one’s home address stolen or credit card stolen is NOT a matter of personal safety in terms of death. Regulations in the auto industry are about saving lives and keeping the money that insurance companies pay out to a minimum. But eventually someone is going to lose enough money on the internet, and some politician is going to fight drastically for some kind of regulatory mechanism. To put it simply: “that would totally suck”

Disclaimer: Mr. Anderson is an agent in the employ of the Matrix. He is not a real person, only a figment of someone’s construct.