Are owners of botnetted computers culpable? [modified]
-
I thought I might get a reply along those lines so let me clarify. First of all your comparison is not really accurate is it? What you are saying is that we should blame the makers of the computers that are used in botnets. What I'm saying is that the posession of something potentially destructive carries with it a certain responsibility. I'm not saying we should start issuing computer licenses (although I know some service techs who would love that) but if I leave a weapon (or some other dangerous object) lying around where anyone can get to it and that object is used in the commission of a crime should I not be reprimanded or at least given a stern talking to for my negligence? And if granny can't be bothered to learn even the very basics of computer safety she probably shouldn't be using one (identity theft via phishing is a very real problem).
Gunni wrote:
What I'm saying is that the posession of something potentially destructive carries with it a certain responsibility.
okay, then you posses a compiler, are you then not responsible for the negligent actions of its use? Once you head down that road it still leads right back to us.
Gunni wrote:
And if granny can't be bothered to learn even the very basics of computer safety she probably shouldn't be using on
If a programmer can't write secure programs, then he should not be writing for Granny. It still leads back to us. Down this road of negligence, it is we who are ultimately responsible. I still say hold the botnet writers responsible, but you can't blame granny for using something we write, gave to her, told her was easy enough for an idiot, and then slap her in cuffs for not knowing enough to use it. Seems silly when put in that light?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
El Corazon wrote:
You can't take the one step without taking the next. If you want to blame the users for not being as smart as us, perhaps you should blame us for not being smart enough to realize they are NOT as smart as us!
consider it done. likewise, gun manufacturers are too stupid to know that they sell a product designed to put holes in things, easily, and that their products will be used by people who don't know what a gun is, what a gun does, or how (where & when & why) to use a gun. but, that's why there is a whole class of crimes based around the concept of negligence. if you have a gun and know how to use it, but accidentally leave it, loaded, in a playground, you're gonna be charged when one kid uses it to kill another.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but, that's why there is a whole class of crimes based around the concept of negligence. if you have a gun and know how to use it, but accidentally leave it, loaded, in a playground, you're gonna be charged when one kid uses it to kill another.
then is that not exactly what we are complaining about? that we left guns in the hands of children and want to blame the children for our own actions?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
but, that's why there is a whole class of crimes based around the concept of negligence. if you have a gun and know how to use it, but accidentally leave it, loaded, in a playground, you're gonna be charged when one kid uses it to kill another.
then is that not exactly what we are complaining about? that we left guns in the hands of children and want to blame the children for our own actions?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
i'm saying computer owners who leave their machines open to infiltration, when there are simple and straightforward ways of preventing the bulk of the common attacks (AV software, firewalls, etc), are negligent and should be held responsible for damages caused by their unsecured machines. programmers and hardware manufacturers make powerful products, and it's up to the people who purchase and use those products to ensure that they aren't used for malicious purposes, even accidentally.
-
That depends if you leave your chainsaw lying around on the ground where anyone could pick it up when the safety guidelines say it should be locked away when not in use.
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
That depends if you leave your chainsaw lying around on the ground where anyone could pick it up when the safety guidelines say it should be locked away when not in use.
So you are saying because there is a best practices guidelines, we as programmers should all follow them, and because we have not (as evident in the mass problems with UAC, security holes, etc), then we are responsible for the actions. The original comparison says that because we put the chainsaw in the hands of a user who doesn't know anything about its operation, that that person should be responsible for its misuse/abuse by a third party. If you want to look for negligence, the negligence issue jumps the users and comes straight to us as programmers, it does not pass go, and does not collect $200.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
i'm saying computer owners who leave their machines open to infiltration, when there are simple and straightforward ways of preventing the bulk of the common attacks (AV software, firewalls, etc), are negligent and should be held responsible for damages caused by their unsecured machines. programmers and hardware manufacturers make powerful products, and it's up to the people who purchase and use those products to ensure that they aren't used for malicious purposes, even accidentally.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm saying computer owners who leave their machines open to infiltration, when there are simple and straightforward ways of preventing the bulk of the common attacks (AV software, firewalls, etc), are negligent and should be held responsible for damages caused by their unsecured machines.
computers are sold as TV's, more common in the market place than an LCD flat screen TV, as common as cable, dvd, etc and sold as being as safe as the same. They are not, have never been, but are sold as such... that is the world we live in, fact. You are saying because they are lied to, that they must somehow break through the lie, and learn as much as we do, or they are ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their computer? There are programmers who defend the fact that a computer should always be left without AV, they are even found here. Spyware detectors and AV should either be standard equipment, or we should have licenses for buying computers. Neither is going to happen. AV companies want money, salesment want to sell computers. We as programmers will continue harping on why programming for the best practices to prevent UAC violations should not be done, because we should have the ultimate power to do anything we darn well want to do, and the rest of the world should just learn what we know, or be responsible for the misuse of it? I still say take the perpetrators... but eventually the other road always leads right back to us. We ultimately continue to ignore safety, common practices, secure practices, suggested practices, etc. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, we, collectively as programmers, still as a majority refuse to secure our software products, because we have this grandoise view that we, collectively, have absolutely no responsibility at all in any of this business.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Maybe we need internationally recognised training courses, and a license to operate.
Hogwash, the home computer was made and designed for Joe Consumer not Joe Programmer with a Degree. They have tech support for setting up your computer so it will fend off these annoyances. Granny just wants to go to her favorite site. My wife is the same way, so I make everything work right for her.
"I'm not altogether all together."
justfunnin wrote:
the home computer was made and designed for Joe Consumer not Joe Programmer with a Degree
That's exactly the problem. It hasn't been designed very well for Joe Consumer. They are too complicated, and too easy to mess up. A real 'home computer' should not be so configurable. Don't get me wrong, I don't really think training and operator licenses are the sensible thing to do. What I really think should be done is to make the home computer less configurable, and more user friendly. And to keep the technical people like us happy, a expert mode that requires knowledge to get into. This is kinda of what the idea of using the least privileged user is about I suppose, it just needs to go a bit further, and not make it so easy to drop back to using admin mode (Yes, I think vista's UAC will be a good thing in the long term)
Simon
-
Bert delaVega wrote:
You shouldn't punish the innocent. But cutting off their service sounds like a good idea.
So, we should punish them? :confused:
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Okay, so give them a month's credit for being cooperative. :laugh: But seriously, if I lost my connection because my computer had malware installed, I would be more mad at myself than the ISP. In fact, I would be grateful for them pointing it out. But I know what you're saying. I'm being penalized and inconvenienced.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm saying computer owners who leave their machines open to infiltration, when there are simple and straightforward ways of preventing the bulk of the common attacks (AV software, firewalls, etc), are negligent and should be held responsible for damages caused by their unsecured machines.
computers are sold as TV's, more common in the market place than an LCD flat screen TV, as common as cable, dvd, etc and sold as being as safe as the same. They are not, have never been, but are sold as such... that is the world we live in, fact. You are saying because they are lied to, that they must somehow break through the lie, and learn as much as we do, or they are ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their computer? There are programmers who defend the fact that a computer should always be left without AV, they are even found here. Spyware detectors and AV should either be standard equipment, or we should have licenses for buying computers. Neither is going to happen. AV companies want money, salesment want to sell computers. We as programmers will continue harping on why programming for the best practices to prevent UAC violations should not be done, because we should have the ultimate power to do anything we darn well want to do, and the rest of the world should just learn what we know, or be responsible for the misuse of it? I still say take the perpetrators... but eventually the other road always leads right back to us. We ultimately continue to ignore safety, common practices, secure practices, suggested practices, etc. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, we, collectively as programmers, still as a majority refuse to secure our software products, because we have this grandoise view that we, collectively, have absolutely no responsibility at all in any of this business.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
El Corazon wrote:
You are saying because they are lied to, that they must somehow break through the lie, and learn as much as we do, or they are ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their computer?
no, not "as much as we do" - there's no need for them to know C# - simply enough to protect themselves. and yes, they should be held responsible, just as people are held responsible for not connecting unsafe devices to the phone lines, or the cable jack, gas line, water line, AC outlets, etc.. mess up and take out your local substation or burn your apartment building down, you get fined or sued or lose your service, etc.. a computer that's connected to the internet is a tool with a huge capacity for abuse; and i'm not going to absolve people of their responsibility to see that that tool is secure and un-compromised.
El Corazon wrote:
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, we, collectively as programmers, still as a majority refuse to secure our software products, because we have this grandoise view that we, collectively, have absolutely no responsibility at all in any of this business.
if users aren't responsible for the problem, there's no reason they should choose "secure" software over insecure software, nor is there any reason they should even bother knowing the difference. why choose one program over another on the basis of security, if there's no repercussion or penalty for running an insecure system ?
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
That depends if you leave your chainsaw lying around on the ground where anyone could pick it up when the safety guidelines say it should be locked away when not in use.
So you are saying because there is a best practices guidelines, we as programmers should all follow them, and because we have not (as evident in the mass problems with UAC, security holes, etc), then we are responsible for the actions. The original comparison says that because we put the chainsaw in the hands of a user who doesn't know anything about its operation, that that person should be responsible for its misuse/abuse by a third party. If you want to look for negligence, the negligence issue jumps the users and comes straight to us as programmers, it does not pass go, and does not collect $200.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
No, I'm saying that if you build a chainsaw, it's a dangerous tool, so when you sell it, you stick a big warning on it that says "don't leave this chainsaw in reach of children". If a user buys your chainsaw and ignores your warning, it is their fault, (not the chainsaw maker) if someone gets killed. Computer designers, build computers, which can be dangerous, and include warnings like "This application could be dangerous, only install this application if you know and trust the publisher". If the user chooses to ignore that warning and install some piece a virus infected malicious software even though they don't know and trust the publisher, that's their fault, not the computer/software designers. (Yes, OK, obviously some blame is to be allocated to the designer of the malicious software as well, and I think they are the ones that deserve the real punishment as what they do is intentional designed to cause harm).
Simon
-
Gunni wrote:
And if granny can't be bothered to learn even the very basics of computer safety she probably shouldn't be using one
she shouldn't have to. That's why there's virus scans, spyblockers, phishing filters, etc that run on auto and tech support to set it up and help when a problem arises. If set up properly a computer will not have these troubles and granny doesn't need to know jack except how to get to her favorite site. That's what I did for my wife.
"I'm not altogether all together."
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
I think this comparison is flawed. You can't compare computer users to the "builders of paved roads", that's the builders of the network infrastructure.
exactly my point. We built the infrastructure of the internet, bit by bit, byte by byte, we fooled ourselves into thinking that we could write idiot proof programs, and the universe simply made better idiots. The comparison isn't flawed, you didn't take it far enough. The original comparison would be holding the person who is victim of a headon responsible for simply being on the highway and minding their own business unaware that there is a drunk on the road out to do someone harm. The drunk, isn't responsible, obviously because the botnet writers aren't responsible, therefore because the one person is somehow unaware they are suddenly responsible. But isn't it US that was unaware? We want to blame the user, to deflect blame. I don't want the blame anymore than any of us, so I say hold the perpetrator responsible, but if you say hold the user responsible, then ultimately WE as programmers, the builders of the infrastructure that makes more users are responsible. I don't think it should be that way. hold the perpetrator of the crime responsible for the total sum damage in time/money/equipment/hours.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Ultimately, I do agree that the perpetrator is the one who should be hold mostly responsible. But I do think untrained users should not use their ignorance as an excuse. Going back to the road metaphor. You've got 1 malicious user who knows how to drive safely, but drives their car at 200mph with the intention of killing people. They are like a malware writer, yes they are definitely responsible. They intentional planned to cause damage. You've also got a granny who's 85, learnt how to drive in the 30's with a dodgy hip and can't press the brake peddle properly. She misreads a new sign because it wasn't in the highway code when she passed. She fails to brake because her hip means she can't press the brake hard. She is also responsible for the damage she causes because she should have a acquired the proper training and made sure she was capable of safely using the vehicle before driving alone. I'm sure she didn't mean to cause the damage, but she is still responsible. She is like the common user, they need adequate training before they can be trusted to remain safe.
Simon
-
What do you guys think? Should people who through their own inaction or ignorance let their computers become a part of a botnet be made responsible for part of the damage their computers help to cause? It's a pretty tricky question because obviously the people themselves are not doing anything illegal (at least for now). Also, what do you think of making it mandatory for ISP's to cut off internet service temporarily (until they get rid of the infection) to those computers that are being used to attack businesses and cause millions of dollars worth of damage? What other ways do you see for stopping the proliferation of botnets? --Edit: Typos
modified on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 10:30 AM
No. While reasoning by analogy is suspect, I think it can be applied here for thinking about the problem. A botnet functions by stealing computing and network resources from its constituent machines. The owner would be liable only if you could prove that they willfuly failed to perform due diligence. Here's the analogy: Your car gets stolen. The thieves hit and kill a pedestrian. Are you therefore guilty of vehicular homicide? The answer of course is no, unless you deliberately left the car unlocked and the keys inside in the hope that it would be stolen. I think the real solution is to find the authors/creators/controllers of the botnet, and then mount their heads on pikes outside the castle walls as a warning to others.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
El Corazon wrote:
You are saying because they are lied to, that they must somehow break through the lie, and learn as much as we do, or they are ultimately responsible for everything that happens with their computer?
no, not "as much as we do" - there's no need for them to know C# - simply enough to protect themselves. and yes, they should be held responsible, just as people are held responsible for not connecting unsafe devices to the phone lines, or the cable jack, gas line, water line, AC outlets, etc.. mess up and take out your local substation or burn your apartment building down, you get fined or sued or lose your service, etc.. a computer that's connected to the internet is a tool with a huge capacity for abuse; and i'm not going to absolve people of their responsibility to see that that tool is secure and un-compromised.
El Corazon wrote:
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, we, collectively as programmers, still as a majority refuse to secure our software products, because we have this grandoise view that we, collectively, have absolutely no responsibility at all in any of this business.
if users aren't responsible for the problem, there's no reason they should choose "secure" software over insecure software, nor is there any reason they should even bother knowing the difference. why choose one program over another on the basis of security, if there's no repercussion or penalty for running an insecure system ?
Chris Losinger wrote:
a computer that's connected to the internet is a tool with a huge capacity for abuse; and i'm not going to absolve people of their responsibility to see that that tool is secure and un-compromised.
but WE, as programmers, and salesmen tell them that they CAN do this, so it still doesn't apply they are doing exactly as someone tells them they should, while other people may or may not tell them something else. The first message they receive, and may never receive another, is that the computer is 100% safe and easy to use. They listened, and you want to punish them for listening? should they doubt everyone? why should they listen to us then?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
No. While reasoning by analogy is suspect, I think it can be applied here for thinking about the problem. A botnet functions by stealing computing and network resources from its constituent machines. The owner would be liable only if you could prove that they willfuly failed to perform due diligence. Here's the analogy: Your car gets stolen. The thieves hit and kill a pedestrian. Are you therefore guilty of vehicular homicide? The answer of course is no, unless you deliberately left the car unlocked and the keys inside in the hope that it would be stolen. I think the real solution is to find the authors/creators/controllers of the botnet, and then mount their heads on pikes outside the castle walls as a warning to others.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
The answer of course is no, unless you deliberately left the car unlocked and the keys inside in the hope that it would be stolen.
and if we sold them a car that could not be locked without expertise they do not have, do not know how to get, or have to be charged an extra fee to use day to day, week to week, who is responsible? The person for refusing to accept a protection racket?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
No, I'm saying that if you build a chainsaw, it's a dangerous tool, so when you sell it, you stick a big warning on it that says "don't leave this chainsaw in reach of children". If a user buys your chainsaw and ignores your warning, it is their fault, (not the chainsaw maker) if someone gets killed. Computer designers, build computers, which can be dangerous, and include warnings like "This application could be dangerous, only install this application if you know and trust the publisher". If the user chooses to ignore that warning and install some piece a virus infected malicious software even though they don't know and trust the publisher, that's their fault, not the computer/software designers. (Yes, OK, obviously some blame is to be allocated to the designer of the malicious software as well, and I think they are the ones that deserve the real punishment as what they do is intentional designed to cause harm).
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
Computer designers, build computers, which can be dangerous, and include warnings like "This application could be dangerous, only install this application if you know and trust the publisher". If the user chooses to ignore that warning and install some piece a virus infected malicious software even though they don't know and trust the publisher, that's their fault, not the computer/software designers.
except we build computer programs that do NOT come with warnings. We sell them to anyone who can afford it, and many who cannot. We sell them, and TELL them, that they are safe, anyone can use it, everyone can use it from 2 year old key-pounding toddlers to 102 year old Great-Granny. And then after telling them it is completely safe, you want to fine them, punish them, because **WE** lied to them. We know it is not safe, but that is NOT the message we are telling them. We are selling computers and software and telling them that anyone and everyone can and should use it. WE are charging racketeering services for AV and spam control and even maintenance/security for many products. You want security updates? no problem, pay up. You want AV? no problem, pay up. The free ones advertise to us, we know where to look, how to look. The big companies make sure the little guy never gets the message that AV can be had for free. They try to run out the free ones too. Because they want to charge the for the "protection service". You have a computer, we told you it was easy, we lied, but now you have it, pay your monthly charge and no one will "get hurt." :rolleyes:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Okay, so give them a month's credit for being cooperative. :laugh: But seriously, if I lost my connection because my computer had malware installed, I would be more mad at myself than the ISP. In fact, I would be grateful for them pointing it out. But I know what you're saying. I'm being penalized and inconvenienced.
Bert delaVega wrote:
But seriously, if I lost my connection because my computer had malware installed, I would be more mad at myself than the ISP. In fact, I would be grateful for them pointing it out.
but you understand what it means, and why it happened. You are talking about some people who know nothing about what malware is, viruses are treated with nyquil or a doctor visit, but usually ignored completely until they are so miserable they have to go somewhere to be treated. The vast majority of people treat themselves the same way, they won't visit a doctor until they are VERY ill. They do not know when a computer is very ill, there is no temperature, no fever, no shakes, and they don't know how to recognize computer vomit. So the computer is ill and they have no idea that it is. If they are lucky, they will get it to a computer doctor. Some of us clean systems for a diet coke. :) Because some of us realize the system is eating itself because of how it is set up. You can't charge for the cleaning service and also punish someone for not taking it. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
The answer of course is no, unless you deliberately left the car unlocked and the keys inside in the hope that it would be stolen.
and if we sold them a car that could not be locked without expertise they do not have, do not know how to get, or have to be charged an extra fee to use day to day, week to week, who is responsible? The person for refusing to accept a protection racket?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
I don't think you can hold the machine owner at fault here. Practically speaking, I don't see how you could even have the ISP disable the user's account based on suspected botnet activity. The botnets are notorious for camouflaging their actions. The potential for false positives is therefore very high.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Ultimately, I do agree that the perpetrator is the one who should be hold mostly responsible. But I do think untrained users should not use their ignorance as an excuse. Going back to the road metaphor. You've got 1 malicious user who knows how to drive safely, but drives their car at 200mph with the intention of killing people. They are like a malware writer, yes they are definitely responsible. They intentional planned to cause damage. You've also got a granny who's 85, learnt how to drive in the 30's with a dodgy hip and can't press the brake peddle properly. She misreads a new sign because it wasn't in the highway code when she passed. She fails to brake because her hip means she can't press the brake hard. She is also responsible for the damage she causes because she should have a acquired the proper training and made sure she was capable of safely using the vehicle before driving alone. I'm sure she didn't mean to cause the damage, but she is still responsible. She is like the common user, they need adequate training before they can be trusted to remain safe.
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
She is like the common user, they need adequate training before they can be trusted to remain safe.
There is one big difference. They are ALL told that they can go online safely, and everything will be fine. There is a license for drivers for a reason, it is not safe. There will never be a license for computing, but there is a racketeering service. If you don't pay your monthly fee someone will "get hurt" and you want to reinforce that service by saying we should punish the users? We gave them a car that cannot be locked without paying for the racketeering service because management wants the racketeering service income. Now we are demanding that the user be punished for not signing up for the racketeering service? Granny will be sold a computer and told it is completely safe. It may be the last message she will get before you toss her in jail for not getting adequate training? how is that somehow fair? If she gets any message it will be the racketeering message. Your computer is not safe, give us $75 a year for the rest of your life, or your computer will get hurt. How would you respond? pay the guy?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
a computer that's connected to the internet is a tool with a huge capacity for abuse; and i'm not going to absolve people of their responsibility to see that that tool is secure and un-compromised.
but WE, as programmers, and salesmen tell them that they CAN do this, so it still doesn't apply they are doing exactly as someone tells them they should, while other people may or may not tell them something else. The first message they receive, and may never receive another, is that the computer is 100% safe and easy to use. They listened, and you want to punish them for listening? should they doubt everyone? why should they listen to us then?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
El Corazon wrote:
but WE, as programmers, and salesmen tell them that they CAN do this
i didn't tell them anything of the kind. and it's not my responsibility to make sure they keep their computer from sending me spam.
-
Okay, so give them a month's credit for being cooperative. :laugh: But seriously, if I lost my connection because my computer had malware installed, I would be more mad at myself than the ISP. In fact, I would be grateful for them pointing it out. But I know what you're saying. I'm being penalized and inconvenienced.
And I can assure you that ISPs are doing everything they can to distance themselves from support calls. The last thing they want to be responsible for is the state of malware on your machine.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.