How Much Does a Reputation For Security Matter Anymore?

dasButcher writes "We often hear that businesses risk their corporate reputations if they don't have adequate security. It's been a common refrain among those selling security technologies: protect your data or suffer the reputational consequences. But, as Larry Walsh points out, the evidence is against this notion. Even companies that have suffered major security breaches — TJX, Hannaford, etc. — have suffered little lasting damage to their reputation. So, does this mean that reputational concerns are simply bunk?"

Comments

bad news is good news?

[An anonymous Frank]

Outside of geek circles, people might assume that if a firm has just suffered a security blunder, that they'll sure be addressing the issue seriously, and that they will make sure it doesn't happen again, as opposed to firms that haven't and presume that security is something other people need to worry about.

Don't know about repeat offenders though.

Size matters

[mcrbids]

From what I can see, size matters. The impact of a security breach on the business is inversely proportional to the size of the business. Small companies, big deal. Big companies, Eh - whataya gonna do?

Re:No 9-11. Yet.

[AdmiralXyz]

Your statement actually has rather terrifying implications, since after 9/11 we saw a rush of hysterics that created a) illusory security practices like the nonsense we have to put up with at airports and b) several wars in the Middle East that have done anything but make us more safe. I can't help but think that when (not if) there is a break-in like you describe, the government is going to start keeping track of everyone who downloads nmap, etc.