Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

...and we don't just rely on drug makers, for example, to be moral and take responsibility. We have government agencies that _require_ strict testing of their safety and effectiveness. If we left it up to the market, we would get inferior results. The problem is, we have no FDA equivalent for tech security.


That's a great point made with a pretty suspect example. FDA very subject to regulatory capture.


Regulatory capture is certainly an important problem, but the pre-FDA record suggests strongly that the FDA we have is much better than not having one. But I would certainly not suggest that there is not a real problem with regulatory capture, just that the current situation in tech security (no FDA equivalent) is worse.


Regulatory capture is certainly an issue, but it doesn't mean that the FDA isn't better than not having a regulatory regime at all.


The cost of the FDA is that the process is slower.

The benefit is that medicine is effective and measurably safe. It’s obviously necessary, and the supplement industry shows why.


I agree, this is a core reason we have a government.


We have FTC/FCC and EU/GDPR




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: