I don't disagree with you, wiffleaxe, but I think a more apt analogy would be like saying "Well I'm glad peoples' houses are being broken into - they should really start thinking about their homes being part of the public sphere." Most locks are about as effectual as most computer security systems - dedicated intruders will get in, and when they do is it okay that they rifle through your shit as though it were just lying there? They did get in, after all. How should we treat our computers more like they are in the public sphere? Not keep personal or private documents on them? Put tape over our webcams just to be sure? Should we really be expected to think about doing our taxes or or making our self-shot pornography or writing our novels as all being done "outside" and in public? What would you suggest to remedy the countless intimate, personal, and financial matters most people do all from the same machine? The problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that it negates basically all privacy or property rights, period. It sets a precedent whereby, if someone can get at something, it's the same as though they had free access to it all along. The thugs 'hacking' computers like this are no better than someone 'lockpicking' your door by kicking it in.
Yes, this is definitely more true than what I said. What I'm trying to say is that we're either entering or in a period where our connectivity is something we're taking for granted, but we seem to expect our privacy to go hand in hand. I am absolutely terrible when it comes to keeping my information secure at home, and clearly there are countless ways I could be hacked. What this article highlights more effectively, and I think what most people don't realize, is that the idea that it takes some computer whiz to get on to your home PC is completely ludicrous- the software is out there, the ideas are fairly straightforward, and if computers are analagous to houses a lot of us don't lock our doors. Now, I'd be delighted if this continues and cybercrime remains rare, but I'm not too hopeful of that.
I figured we were closer to the same page than it looked from your first comment, but I had to call out the wording of it for the sake of clarification. I agree - the most troubling thing about this is that it seems like anyone could break into your computer (I am not going to refer to this stuff as 'hacking' because I see it as an insult to people who actually have the talent to hack) and worse, no one seems to expect it. People do need to be made as aware of the security threats to their computers as they are of the security threats to their homes. If we got more articles like this on major news networks, people might begin to understand the appropriate level of paranoia, self-defense, and even education about computers. What we have today is that the majority of users are either blindly trusting or blindly fearful of these magic boxes on their desks or their laps. Long story short: To me, it seems the greatest tool to keep your computer safe is education and awareness. After reading this article, I'm sure many of us will guard our computers much more carefully. Now if we can get it published in the New York Times, maybe the people who don't necessarily read Ars Technica can get the same kinds of benefits. Would-be intruders will always up the ante in the security arms race, but good security companies can at least give users a fighting chance. And even if you aren't going to take more steps to defend yourself, you at least know the risks you're taking and take steps to minimize the damage of an intrusion.