Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
LarrySheldon at cox.net
Wed Jun 9 17:32:54 UTC 2010
On 6/9/2010 12:17, Joe Greco wrote:
>>>> What I don't want to see which you are advocating... I don't want to see
>>>> the end users who do take responsibility, drive well designed vehicles
>>>> with proper seat belts and safety equipment, stay in their lane, and
>>>> do not cause accidents held liable for the actions of others. Why should
>>>> we penalize those that have done no wrong simply because they happen
>>>> to be a minority?
>>> I agree, on the other hand, what about those people who genuinely didn't
>>> do anything wrong, and their computer still got Pwned?
>> At the very least, if you connected a system to the network and it got Pwned,
>> you were negligent in your behavior, if not malicious. Negligence is still
>> wrong, even if not malice.
> So, just so we're clear here, I go to Best Buy, I buy a computer, I
> bring it home, plug it into my cablemodem, and am instantly Pwned by
> the non-updated Windows version on the drive plus the incessant cable
> modem scanning, resulting in a bot infection... therefore I am
> Do you actually think a judge would find that negligent, or is this
> just your own personal definition of negligence? Because I doubt that
> a judge, or even an ordinary person, could possibly consider it such.
One can argue (and I will) that there is indeed some culpability because
the buyer bought the cheapest version of everything and connected it to
a negligent provider's system.
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG