Sam Harris posted a video trying to draw such parallels between digital and physical worlds [1]. After reading responses to his first video, he then changed his mind [2]. In particular, one email from a Google engineer he found particularly compelling. I can summarize.
Our phones contain both a) things we consider privacy-sensitive and b) security-sensitive. Family photos and bank accounts. The Googler dispels one of Sam's analogies. Digital security and insecurity is highly scalable. We lock our doors, and police can force them open if needed. Generally, there are not many burglars around. Here I will quote Sam's reading of the Googler's email,
> "The digital world is like having a house at zero distance from every burglar in existence, including the planet's top lock pickers. They have zero cost and near-zero risk attempting to break into my door. The "police" are virtually non-existent, and even if identified the bad guys are probably out of reach of prosecution. Even the amateurs have tools that allow them to probe millions of doors per second, and the pros have access to the same heavy tools that the police would use to force my door. And perhaps I live in a huge condo with a single door, so hacking that one lock will expose millions to ransacking. That's the nature of every digital device connected to the internet. Attacking them is a highly scalable task. You're not protected by your location, there's no affluent neighborhood with low crime and good police, where the wealthy can live and feel safe. Nope, the internet is a dystopian world when it comes to security. It's a Mad Max scenario where you're only safe if your front door and your entire house and your personal car is blinded like Fort Knox's safes, and armed with flame throwers."
Before I realized Sam had recanted his position, I wrote a point-by-point response to his first video [3]. I think the Googler did a better job relating to non-technologists.
Our phones contain both a) things we consider privacy-sensitive and b) security-sensitive. Family photos and bank accounts. The Googler dispels one of Sam's analogies. Digital security and insecurity is highly scalable. We lock our doors, and police can force them open if needed. Generally, there are not many burglars around. Here I will quote Sam's reading of the Googler's email,
> "The digital world is like having a house at zero distance from every burglar in existence, including the planet's top lock pickers. They have zero cost and near-zero risk attempting to break into my door. The "police" are virtually non-existent, and even if identified the bad guys are probably out of reach of prosecution. Even the amateurs have tools that allow them to probe millions of doors per second, and the pros have access to the same heavy tools that the police would use to force my door. And perhaps I live in a huge condo with a single door, so hacking that one lock will expose millions to ransacking. That's the nature of every digital device connected to the internet. Attacking them is a highly scalable task. You're not protected by your location, there's no affluent neighborhood with low crime and good police, where the wealthy can live and feel safe. Nope, the internet is a dystopian world when it comes to security. It's a Mad Max scenario where you're only safe if your front door and your entire house and your personal car is blinded like Fort Knox's safes, and armed with flame throwers."
Before I realized Sam had recanted his position, I wrote a point-by-point response to his first video [3]. I think the Googler did a better job relating to non-technologists.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQAmlVFjJ9k
[2] https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ
[3] https://pastelink.net/151k