Cynicism Masquerading as Insight

The Misguided Antagonism Toward Compliance Frameworks: Why Criticism Misses the Point

There’s a growing chorus in the industry insisting that compliance frameworks are outdated, bureaucratic, or even counterproductive. The argument usually goes something like this:

“Compliance doesn’t equal security, so why bother?”

It’s a catchy line — but it’s also a shallow one.

In my experience as a cybersecurity leader, I’ve never met a serious GRC practitioner who claimed that certification was a panacea for the industry’s security problems. No one doing the work believes that a SOC 2 report magically stops ransomware, or that ISO 27001 alone will prevent a supply‑chain compromise. That’s a strawman built by people who haven’t actually operated a security program.

But here’s the truth critics often ignore: Compliance frameworks are not designed to be the entire solution. They are designed to be a critical component of broader, layered security strategy.

Why the Antagonism Exists

The hostility toward compliance frameworks usually comes from three places:

1. Frustration with bad implementations

People blame the framework when the real issue is a checkbox culture, poor leadership, or a rushed audit cycle. A framework can’t fix an organization that treats security as a nuisance.

2. Misunderstanding the purpose

Frameworks are baselines — not guarantees. They create shared language, expectations, and minimum controls. They are the floor, not the ceiling.

3. The allure of cynicism

It’s easier to sound smart by dismissing something rather than by understanding it. Cynicism masquerades as insight, especially on social media, where nuance dies quickly.

What Compliance Actually Provides

Critics rarely acknowledge the tangible value frameworks deliver:

• Repeatability — You can’t scale security on vibes.

• Auditability — Investors, customers, and regulators need evidence, not promises.

• Alignment — Frameworks create a common structure across teams and vendors.

• Risk visibility — Even imperfect controls surface gaps that would otherwise stay hidden.

• Trust — Certifications are signals. They don’t guarantee safety, but they demonstrate maturity.

No one claims these are sufficient on their own. But remove them, and you’re left with chaos, inconsistency, and unverifiable claims.

The Real Problem Isn’t Compliance — It’s Complacency

Compliance becomes harmful only when organizations treat it as the finish line instead of the starting point. A SOC 2 report should be a snapshot of a living, breathing security program — not a trophy.

The best security teams use frameworks as scaffolding, not shackles. They build on top of them. They adapt them. They operationalize them. They treat them as a foundation for continuous improvement.

A More Honest Conversation

If the industry wants to have a real conversation about security maturity, we need to stop pretending that compliance frameworks are the enemy. They’re not. They’re imperfect, evolving, sometimes frustrating — but indispensable.

The real antagonism should be directed at:

• superficial implementations

• leadership that underfunds security

• vendors who oversell certifications

• organizations that treat audits as theater

• critics who attack frameworks without proposing alternatives

Compliance isn’t perfect. It isn’t sufficient. It isn’t the whole answer. But it is the antidote to chaos, inconsistency, and magical thinking. The industry doesn’t need less structure — it needs better structure. Because in security, as in every discipline that matters, hope is not a strategy.