Yeah, that is an accurate description. Internet devices have become like more appliances, but still require a fair level of technical knowledge to operate securely. And the security risk affects others. Or to paraphrase you: a lot of idiots are out there oblivious to risk.
So it's out-of-wack in my opinion. Two obvious possible solutions are to either make them not require the skill level or not allow their use by those without the skill level.
The second I think is impractical and the first still doesn't seem to be happening.
A third option would be to secure them on a different level not involving the user. Government would love to do that, with a high price and low effectiveness. Some have suggested ISPs. Or maybe some type of secure internet neighborhood, the equivalent of a gated community.
I dunno the answer.
Thanks for your reply.
>>Some have suggested ISPs.
Aye, isn’t that the emperor strolling down the internet in his clouded (fancy ISP) underwear?
[A third option would be to secure them on a different level not involving the user]
“Windows 8 PCs will ship with Microsoft’s certificate stored in UEFI (and possibly other certificates, depending on the manufacturer). UEFI will check the boot loader before launching it and ensure it’s signed by Microsoft – if a rootkit or another malware program does replace your boot loader, UEFI won’t allow it to boot. This prevents malware from hijacking your boot process and concealing itself from your operating system.”
http://www.howtogeek.com/116569/htg-explains-how-windows-8s-secure-boot-feature-works-what-it-means-for-linux/
That’s a good start.
In addition, MS needs to implement process specific claims assignment instead of the ridiculous notion of UserIDs operating in a full trust contract with the rights of whatever groups they happen to be assigned to.