 rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California
| Another View "... even adding on additional features for a slightly bumped up monthly fee."
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
Those who claim that people who aren't technologically sophisticated shouldn't buy computers are missing the point. The personal computer has become an appliance! It needs as much engineering and manufacturing effort put into consumer protection as other appliances we've come to trust.
Now, I'm not a big government advocate. However, consider that waves of fraud, abuse, and deficient or dangerous products have caused agencies such as CPA to intervene. Standards, laws, and even penalties are applied to other manufactured goods when they fail to perform or are injurious to the public. Why not to manufactured goods such as software and to services such as ISP's? Tort is not restricted to physical injury alone.
Imagine this ... "Recall ordered of MS Windows version 291.5" or "Acme ISP fined $1 million for fraud and deceptive business practices."
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 12:17:24] |
|
|
|
 AthlGrondPremium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| said by rtoday:
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
Great idea.
However if most users were better informed by their OS or provider they would complain about the OS or provider as being hard to work with, or more likely would ignore the information. (Which appears to be the case with home users of windows XP which by default nags them to get updates...) |
|
| reply to rtoday
So does this mean that Anheuser-Busch should be held accountable for X percent of all alcohol related auto accidents? |
|
 RipRapBmw Power
join:2000-08-24
Berlin, CT
kudos:1 | said by sherpaboy:
So does this mean that Anheuser-Busch should be held accountable for X percent of all alcohol related auto accidents?
I agree! Same logic. X=100.
--
The world holds two classes of men: intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. |
|
 trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | reply to rtoday
IMHO we should place responsibility on the drivers traversing the information superhighway rather than toll gate providers replete with the requirement of age, tests of visual acuity and familiarity with the principles of their intended activity. Absent such I would suggest that ISP's be granted the Charter from State Insurance Agency's which enables them to sell personal (or more appropriately personal computer) liability insurance or we could simply continue along in our vicious game of "Dodge'M". In any case because people have been allowed to buy toasters shouldn't obligate Wonder Bread et. al. to guarantee that it's (the toast) the 'right color'!
Lastly, I am writing from the Lone Star State but have thrown my sombrero (or Stetson) in the ring for Govenor of California...if you agree with my opinion please support me during the upcoming election. Thank you! |
|
trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | reply to RipRap
said by RipRap:
said by sherpaboy:
So does this mean that Anheuser-Busch should be held accountable for X percent of all alcohol related auto accidents?
I agree! Same logic. X=100.
Actually not the same logic. Clearly A-B makes alcohol hence they are more proximate to the cause. He is not suggesting that we hold IBM (et.al.) or even US Robotics (et.al.) responsible. He is suggesting that we hold the gas station who sold the drunken driver fuel to be responsible. |
|
| reply to rtoday
[QUOTE=rtoday
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 12:17:24
[/QUOTE]
So if I burned my hand on an oven because i didnt know it was hot it is the makers responsibility for making it heat up? If you bothered to ever read the TOS you would notice the ISP just gives you a connection to the internet. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to just havea cable modem sit with nothing connected to it, so be it. If you just wanted it for your XBOX, fine. YOUR PC is YOUR responsibility. The only responsibilty of the ISP is to assure that your line is functioning. People need to stop blaming other people for their stupidity/laziness. |
|
| reply to trisomy
No, it is the same idea. The point is that a company can sell you the product and can be held responsible for the product itself, but not how you use the product. Anheuser-Busch can be held responsible if their beer contains poisons which cause sickness or death, but they can't be blamed if you get drunk, try to drive cross-country, and die. In the same way, an ISP should not be held responsible if their users don't take the time to learn how to protect themselves correctly with firewalls and anti-virus software.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." -- Rich Cook |
|
 Jhon
join:2001-05-14
Northridge, CA | reply to rtoday
said by rtoday:
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
Not the ISPs responsibility. Their "obligation" ends at the TOS. said by rtoday:
Those who claim that people who aren't technologically sophisticated shouldn't buy computers are missing the point. The personal computer has become an appliance! It needs as much engineering and manufacturing effort put into consumer protection as other appliances we've come to trust.
An appliance -- like a blender or a drill? Do we hold sears responsible if we drill a hole in our head? Or if we stick our hand in a running blender? Or decide to take a bath with either? said by rtoday:
Now, I'm not a big government advocate.
Kinda sounds like you are -- or at least someone who's not too fond of personal responsibility being part of every day life. |
|
trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | reply to DenverDialup
said by DenverDialup:
No, it is the same idea.
Please re-read my post from the context of my response rather than your own rhetoric.
The analogy of A-B and it's contribution to 'death by drinking and driving' is proximate...albeit indirectly perhaps but nevertheless proximate. A-B manufactures a substance which if used improperly can contribute to drunkenness and drunkenness in turn can lead to 'alcohol related accidents'.
Internet Service Provision leading to computer infections however is not proximate. Computers are not infected by improper utilization of the Internet and improper use of the Internet does not result in infection nor is there any expectation that the 'reasonable man' (the basis of tort) could have foreseen that their provision of a product within the standards of a community would/could have caused injury (the basis of liability).
Hence sherpaboy's analogy does not coincide with rtoday's statement about liability (or tort specifically) nor Boycott's concordant remark. Hence my statement 'Actually not the same logic' and the analogy which I suspect more apropos! |
|
rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California | reply to Jhon
Oh my goodness. I had no intention to spark such discussion!
But Jhon has mentioned something to which I feel obligated to respond: No, Sears probably has no responsibility if one drills holes in one's head. However, there have been regulatory boundaries placed on the electrical safety of power tools. NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized. |
|
trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | said by rtoday:
Oh my goodness. I had no intention to spark such discussion!
This comment appears insincere given your comment below.
said by rtoday:
Nonsense. quote:
I am not suggesting your recant is not sincere but clearly your locution appears to require some, for lack of a better term, slight adjustment. However...
[QUOTE= rtoday  ]But Jhon has mentioned something to which I feel obligated to respond:
...now, now...do you take us all to be daft or perhaps you are attempting to lull us into simply accepting YHO but understating your intent by restating your point!
[QUOTE= rtoday ]No, Sears probably has no responsibility if one drills holes in one's head. However, there have been regulatory boundaries placed on the electrical safety of power tools. NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized.
You resort now to some a priori defense of your position...I think not. Regulatory intrusion spans a history in America from the United States Constitution to the Alien and Sedition Act to the House Un-American Committee...not all of it directed to the 'public good'.
These two statements...
said by rtoday:
NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized.
are clearly juxtaposed. If you are making a 'closeted request' for help please just ask! However I do not believe that Government Intrusion into the Internet will be the result of ports being either open or closed on behalf of users or do I for one believe that anything beyond a tutorial on proper security oft repeated will solve the problem we have recently experienced.
|
|
rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California
| Gosh, you Texans are tough! 
Flopping on the floor in a fervent sweat ... I yield!
I could not find an appropriate precedent. No "closeted" intent here. Just expressing what I believe to be a humble mom&pop user's opinion.
"Juxtaposed?" I think not. Merely a statement of my feeling, followed by a statement of fact.
This is not court, but rather an open forum for expressing one's opinion (whether or not supported). Have a great day!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-15 14:37:03] |
|
| reply to trisomy
OK, if I was on my way to the bar when the gas station attendant sold me the fuel, was he liable? |
|
trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | said by sherpaboy:
OK, if I was on my way to the bar when the gas station attendant sold me the fuel, was he liable?
For what? |
|
trisomyPremium
join:2002-05-23
Katy, TX | reply to rtoday
said by rtoday:
"Juxtaposed?" I think not. Merely a statement of my feeling, followed by a statement of fact.
I apologize for the error in my locution. I should have written 'a juxtaposed postulate' in relation to the analogy you were attempting to construct.
said by rtoday:
This is not court, but rather an open forum for expressing one's opinion.
Would you prefer that I simply not participate or may I express mine as well?
said by rtoday:
...but rather an open forum for expressing one's opinion (whether or not supported).
You have finally opined in a manner in which I wholeheartedly agree with you! |
|
stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA | reply to trisomy
Sorry, we don't need a J.R. Ewing for the govenor's spot-although, a Stetson would be nicer to see than Grey Davis's never moving patch of growth on the top of his head. Wonder if he's a Hairclub for men client...
Go Aahnold!!!! |
|
