"When ATM machines came out and people were prosecuted for robbing ATM machines, I don't think anybody thought the banks were against technology because they didn't want their ATM machines lifted"

In the quote by Hilary Rosen, she draws an analogy between the intro of automated teller machine and the development of new innovations, likely referencing the battles modern-day technologies deal with regarding security and legality. Her declaration recommends that novelty in technology typically accompanies unpredicted difficulties, particularly relating to abuse or exploitation.

Rosen's metaphor highlights a basic point: when ATM machines were initially presented, incidents of theft or vandalism did not equate to banks being anti-technology. Rather, the banks were attempting to safeguard their properties and guarantee the security of their consumers' funds. Her example underscores an essential difference between protesting technological improvement itself and taking preventive steps versus its misuse.

The quote indirectly attends to wider problems appropriate in modern-day contexts, such as the rise of digital and online technologies. There is often a misconception that being cautious or executing restrictions is comparable to opposing development. Nevertheless, Rosen argues that these protective steps are required to safeguard both institutions and users as they adapt to brand-new technological landscapes.

Furthermore, Rosen's example implies that as technology progresses, so too does the nature of criminal activity and security measures. The introduction of ATM machines represented a substantial shift in how financial deals were conducted, demanding upgraded security protocols. Similarly, in today's digital age, brand-new innovations such as AI, blockchain, and the web of things introduce opportunities alongside new security difficulties.

By referencing the early days of ATMs, Rosen recommends that welcoming innovation needs a balanced method-- one that cultivates innovation while executing necessary safeguards. Her quote requires a nuanced understanding where defense and innovation coexist, highlighting that securing against technological misuse is not synonymous with resisting technological progress.