[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:55:38PM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> > i do, but mostly for my own use and for people with my level of skill.
> > systems admin tools rather than applications for the most part. in fact,
> > i hate doing applications development.
> 
> Sounds like the Craig Sanders I always read on Link, i.e. "me me me".
> Think outside your world and think of millions of people using FOSS out
> of the box with no ability to even use the shell. That is where FOSS is
> going. FOSS is actually REPLACING Windows on the desktop, slowly but surely.
> For every experienced shell user, I can show you 1,000,000 GUI clueless
> GUI users. How's that for a sense of perspective?

no, fuck it! i'm sick and fucking tired of everything in this world
catering exclusively to morons and incompetents. and i'm sick and tired
of all the arguments for mediocrity.

that's WHY i like free software. it's written BY smart people FOR smart
people, and isn't dumbed down by marketing jerks for the larger consumer
market.


the morons have more than enough catering to them. what's wrong with
having one or two things that cater to people that AREN'T morons - or do
they have to have 100% of everything?  is 99.99% not enough?


why should i give a fuck about the millions of people who can't even use
a shell? it's not as if that's difficult to do - if they couldn't be
bothered learning that, then fuck 'em.

i really don't care one way or the other if some people choose to put in
an effort to make free software more useful to dumb people - AS LONG AS
IT ISN'T IN ANY WAY REQUIRED FOR *ALL* FREE SOFTWARE.


> The issue I am addressing here is software security and reliability for
> the great unwashed masses, not for the tiny minority of geeks out there
> who know a DDoS from a phishing scam. Perspective, Craig, perspective.

no, you get some perspective. the fact that stupid people are in the
majority is no reason to cater exclusively to them. non-stupid people
have needs too.


> What an agony you are putting yourself through. I am only proposing that
> liability legislation be considered. I haven't proposed anything as draconian
> as what you are, Craig. You seem to putting the cart before the horse.

i'm not proposing anything.  i'm just pointing out the dangers in strict
liability legislation.

> Think about what form the legislation would practically take if you wish
> to think about it at all. Surely you would not wish the very ideas / fear
> mongers that you raise in this discussion to be actually implemented
> and thus to so disadvantage the FOSS community, would you? I certainly
> wouldn't.
> 
> 
> > also, what of the case where the author/developer releases only source
> > code, not an executable (which is a fairly common practice in the FOSS
> > world) - are they liable for someone else compiling and running it, or
> > compiling and re-distributing it?
>  
> Of course not. Not if I were writing the legislation.
> You really are a worry wart, Craig!

no, i've seen enough instances of clueless politicians legislation about
technology they don't understand (from internet censorship to stem cell
research) to know that it is a real danger.


> > which implies that this can not and should not be a liability under
> > any legislation. if there are no reasonable precautions that you
> > could have taken, then how can you be held liable for failing to
> > take them?
>
> You can't. Legislation is meant to be *reasonable* and
> *implementable*.  You seem to think that I am proposing to take the
> law to a new and heretofore never seen level of draconian punishment
> to be unleashed on a naive and unsuspecting populace of FOSS
> developers. Nothing could be further from my intent.

internet censorship can't actually work or be enforced, yet the legislation
passed.



craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)