Greg YoungCar analogies are one of my favorites in discussing ITSec.
In Ottawa they put a layer of ashphalt at a notorious intersection. This microsurfacing improved traction and reduced rear-end collisions 39%. No safety downside, but it costs money.
In Virginia, a study on red light cameras determined that they increased accidents. But they made money. There has been some misdirection by apologist that the accidents were now happy rear-enders rather than devastating angle impacts, but that doesn’t wash because injury rates went up. Officials say drivers need to understand the technology for it to work. Red light cameras make money for cities, but insurance, police, and health costs are in a different bucket.
At the end of the day, security is about securing things and not getting in the way of business. The rabbit hole of security ROI too often leads away from security and the business. Security is and will continue to be a cost center, and people are more the threat than the best solution.
Don’t spend frivolously, but keep security first and you will support the business, not try and create a competing one and become the threat.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
1 response so far ↓
1 Hank May 2, 2009 at 1:19 am
But what about the broken windows theory!? Don’t we want all those rear-end accidents to happen to give mechanics and car parts companies money for jobs? Duh!
/sarcasm…