I've not said it was wrong to use security, what I have said it is wrong to
force a higher level of security down people's throats even when they don't want or need them. there are some cases where high security is needed, and there are some cases where high security is a total waste of time and resources. Maybe this example will help you understand the point.
I have a house and a garden shed. The exterior doors on the house are very strong and have very solid deadlocks on them because I've got valuable gear inside, both in monetary value (tv, fridge, etc) and sentimental value (photos, etc), and IP value (stories in the middle of being written). The shed has a few old tools and other things in it so it has a basic door with a cheap latch lock. Even if everything is stolen the total value is below the insurance company's minimum claim threshold. I, as the user, decide what level of security I want on the which. What MS is doing is equivalent to forcing me to have to put a solid core door and deadlock on the garden shed because they now say it's either top end security of no security, no middle ground.
I believe the level of security to apply to my system and data is my choice, and not for a software company to decide and force me to use. It's that simple - user choice or corporate dictatorship.
