You'll find it in tons of large-scale (e.g. governmental) decisions at the very least. "is it worth more to prevent X than to deal with the fallout" is a decision that has to be made at some point, and human life / injury are part of that equation.
So, in a way, yes. I do. So do lots of people when they go to urgent care rather than the ER, knowing that the ER could bankrupt them, and they'd rather risk the delay. I don't have numbers off the top of my head, but I don't think it's as uncommon as you seem to think it is.
> you think people would support your cause of measuring everything in dollars and going around destroying their property because they're "just as dangerous as food poisoning"?
"People", in general, are dumb. Individuals, when explained, might actually support it, but I guess you'd have to start teaching the following in school:
If you want to compare things, you need to express them with the same unit. It so happens that there is universal unit already in use to compare everything to everything else - money. Which, internationally, means dollars. Moral caveats apply, but this is how you correctly compare arbitrary things when you lack a more suitable common unit.
> Like, seriously? If you went around and asked people whether their restaurants should be shut down for unsanitary practices, do you think you would get a response on the same planet as what you would get if you asked them about their IoT devices getting shut down? Come on.
Sure, why not.
Unsanitary practices: you weigh some people likely ending up in the hospital with food poisoning against shutting down a business employing a dozen or more people for unspecified amount of time, which may or may not have pretty bad secondary effects (e.g. waiters aren't exactly the kind of people who can afford asudden job loss).
IoT botnet: you weigh bricking a bunch of (at this point in time) non-essential trinkets, thus inconveniencing innocent consumers and making it worse for garbage companies who shouldn't be in business in the first place, vs. enabling moderate-probability inconveniencing events for thousands to millions of people, such as DDoSing random websites, and occasional low-probability high-impact event, such as Maersk getting pwnd and disrupting worldwide shipping.
Ultimately I'd expect the IoT scenario to be less important than food poisoning scenario when you tally up both sides of both choices - and accordingly, food poisoning is something governments worldwide are already dealing with. However, and circling back to tty2300's original comment, the pattern of thinking is pretty much the same here in both scenarios.
>You're comparing urgent care to ER to somehow argue people view both DDoS and food poisoning in dollars?
No. I'm responding to:
>You measure your health in dollars?
And apparently reading it with a different intent than it was written with.
---
>If you went around and asked people whether their restaurants should be shut down for unsanitary practices, do you think you would get a response on the same planet as what you would get if you asked them about their IoT devices getting shut down?
They should, yes. I don't really think they do though. Botnets cause them harm (they're often used to hide the source of hacks, which often target financial info, which does affect millions of people), but it's often further removed than food poisoning, so it's harder for them to identify the cause. They're also usually more attached to purchases of things that work for longer than a meal lasts.
People don't have visceral reactions to things in line with what they should rationally fear. I don't think anyone would debate that. I'm arguing DDoS (and everything else botnets are used for) are in that "does not get an appropriately strong reaction" category.
Most people have wildly inconsistent treatment of health risks and are largely reactionary. Not sure they are a good basis for determining what is ethical/moral actions.
