Note: In-fosec-centives

‘Because’ that’s not a word yet. But one might miss this presentation here, at one’s loss – if only for the return of this little gem:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary is dependent on his not understanding it. [Upton Sinclair Jr]

If only, not only, semantics [i.e., the things that actually matter, not syntax as much – excepting code where things seem to be in the inverse!], we have many important talking points. Like, nudging solutions [on a scale from true nudges, small and isolated, all the way to supernudges, big blows on many dimensions as society is so complex little local nudges will meet resilience], and the above
that is oh so very true for all sorts of situations in organisationland. Like risk management, that is in its so very required overhaul it seems. Maybe make full and all salaries dependent on change, then you may achieve a little. Privacy, the same [though it is but a subset of infosec that needs the changes anyhow] – nudging, or making the wanted behaviour the easiest [creating resistance against the less-wanted behaviour] already played a sideline role there but wasn’t operationalised enough yet.

Yes one feels a sledgehammer is needed against the incumbents, the crazy ones.

Oh well. Check out the pres, and:

[Great for a museum, to protect the inside. Organisations need to go out, not stay in; Vienna]

Your comments, please