Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 6/9/2010 08:05, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> said:
I'm still truly amazed that no one has sic'd a lawyer on Microsoft for
creating an "attractive nuisance" - an operating system that is too
easily hacked and used to attack innocent victims, and where others have
to pay to clean up after Microsoft's mess.
Many of the problems are PEBKAC, as evidenced by the massive responses
to phishing scams. I can't tell you the number of our users that have
sent their password to Nigeria to be used to log in to our webmail and
spam.
In other words, if somebody is going to handle the problem, the people
that know how ("ISP's" for want of a term) are going to have to do it.
Yes, ISPs are going to have to "handle" the problem. But, IMHO the root
cause of the problem starts in Redmond, and ISPs should sue Redmond for
the lack of suitable security in their product, rendering it an
attractive nuisance and requiring ISPs to clean up after Redmond's
mess. It's not fair to expect ISPs to shoulder this burden, and it's
not fair to pass on the cost to customers as a blanket surcharge (and it
won't work from a business standpoint) as not all customer use
Microsoft's virus-vector software. And it's not really fair to expect
the end customer to shoulder this burden when it's Microsoft's fault for
failing to properly secure their software. But end user customers don't
have the resources to sue Microsoft, and then there's that whole EULA
problem.
ISPs who are NOT a party to the EULA between Microsoft and the user, but
who are impacted by Microsoft's shoddy security can (IMHO) make a valid
claim that Microsoft created an attractive nuisance (improperly secured
software), and should be held accountable for the vandal's use thereof,
used to access and steal resources (bandwidth, etc.) from the ISP thru
the ISP's customers infested Windows computer.
jc
