As for older players like me, I don't think we should have any protection. The pirates are correct. When I undock that is my acknowledgement that I accept the risk. But what is the risk to the griefer? What is the downside for him or her? It isn't the security status they'll lose. If that was a deterrent we wouldn't have griefers at all. Most of them love their low security status an wear it like the badge of dishonor it is.
I've long wished there was some risk to those who prey on hi-sec carebears; some consequence for their actions. Today I was reading through the Hulkageddon V thread on Failheap and saw this post by Xiang Jiao,
"For an alliance like the goons, they would pretty much have to completely forsake their relationship with the people who organize Incursions, and I have a funny feeling that most players will want to be able to run Incursions again if ever they should happen to leave their current alliance one day. For example, my current corp, being sometime griefers, would never dream about pissing in the Incursion swimming pool since we use it as our primary source of income. It's like the one and only rule we impose."Now that's how a deterrent works! It's risky for griefers to go after Incursion fleets. The consequences make them think about their future. That's what needs to happen all the time. Currently there are no serious drawbacks to griefing hi-sec carebears. That is the nature of the problem.
As an Industrialist, I know exactly how I'd like to make griefers think twice. I'd not do any business with them. Currently I can't do that. When I put my goods on the market anyone can buy them - even people I don't like. I want control of my own business. It's my right.