On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:09:27 +0000 Ned Slider <n...@unixmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Personally I'd like to see some large corporates go after some > >> infected home users in the courts for wilful damage. > > I think they'd lose. Most home users could make a compelling case > > that they were unaware of the infection and lacked the technical > > know-how to prevent it or clean it up. > Ignorance is no defence, at least in the UK. In Canada, ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of the facts is. In other words, if you're completely ignorant of the fact that your computer is a botnet member, it could be a defence. > I lack the technical > skills to ensure my car is safe to drive on public highways but the > law compels me to make it so regardless. Why should the Information > Superhighway be treated any differently? The damage caused is just as > costly to the victims, if not life threatening. I agree to some extent, but the situations are not exactly comparable. Would you propose requiring people who want to use the Internet to first take an "Internet Driving Test"? > > Would you approve of a Ralph Nader-like approach of suing Microsoft > > for knowingly producing defective and insecure software? Detroit > > was shamed, bullied and sued into improving the safety of its cars; > > do you think that could work with Microsoft? > I don't know who Ralph Nader is. He's a consumer-rights crusader who led a high-profile campaign against unsafe cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader [...] > Equally though, I am in absolutely no doubt that ISPs will never fine > their own users unless they are legally required to do so - it would > simply be bad business. Ah, well... there's a good opening for legislation. > Probably a better proposition would be to fine the ISP for every > infected PC on their network - that would get their attention. Proving that would be tough. Anyway, I think we're dreaming here and drifting somewhat OT... Regards, David.
