how-to block ads
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to Mactron
Re: Sounds fair to me
I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example)
My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by Camelot One  :I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. You would push computing back to the stone age with a law punishing people for the abuse via virus or spam bot.
I want to know what happens when they get a box that has been rooted and used for whoring warez ? If a trojan or infected website was used do they nullify the offense ? To much unanswered for this to be a good law. I have had boxes rooted that were fully patched behind a soft firewall and I left the box unattended for the week end when I went to work and came back to a drive full of warez. All be it , it was 6 years ago when I had a nice ds3 to my office. That could have got me kicked off the net from that provider.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
OceanaJones
join:2004-10-18
Suffolk, VA
| Even though the above reply is off subject concerning the virus and bot stuff, The point is... If you are informed on your first warning (remember, they give you three (3) warnings)that your computer is infected with a virus, bot, rootkit, or whatever, that should give you ample time to correct the problem with no loss of service. After the third strike, however, you should be counted out! Likewise, if you have been warned on three different occasions that your internet service has been used illegally, then it should be cut off, no matter who you want to blame for the illegal use. And another thing while I'm at it. The opinions of thieves don't matter much. | |
diskdocx
join:2005-09-26
Burlington, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving?
Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension.
Makes sense to me. | |
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| reply to OceanaJones
A majority of PC users even when warned would be clueless that their boxes are owned on top of that no body has even addressed the issue of hackers accessing unsecured Wi-Fi IP connections.
This proposal is just another last gasp attempt of the international mega-corps to retain their death grip on consumers and artists. | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to diskdocx
said by diskdocx :So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving? Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension. Makes sense to me. Thats just not an accurate comparison. It would be more like, if you knowingly loaned your car to a drunk, who repeatedly drove your car drunk, you would risk losing the car the THIRD time he was caught.
And I'd be fine with that too.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA | reply to Camelot One
instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| said by joker5656 :instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. Because then we are right back to ISPs monitoring what you do on the internet. Even with good intentions (in the case of stopping infection) the idea still won't fly.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
diskdocx
join:2005-09-26
Burlington, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Camelot One
That's fine for the grandkid analogy, but I was referring specifically to the bot/virus issue.
No one is willingly offering that up, so the drunk driver analogy is moot, unless the drunk driver happened to steal your car.
I've been hacked, and ended up as a bot on mIRC. Granted that was a number of years ago, and my computer is far more secure now than it was then. But the bottom line is that these measures will mostly hit casual users and unfortunately a number of tech unsavvy folks. Not the hardcore pirates.
What I expect to see is a lot more hacking/IP theft/virus attacks so that the hardcore folks will get around these measures. | |
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| reply to Camelot One
That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Okay, yes, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system. | |
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| said by Camelot One :I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Oh right, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system.
Edit: quoted. | |
|
