[LINK] The Ethics (!) of Dodgy Web Designers

[Glen Turner]

Ivan Trundle wrote:
...
> It also confounds me that well-educated friends of mine persist in using
> such machines, and a common refrain is that 'I used Nortons until it
> expired, but now my machine is messed up'. And when I suggest that they
> could improve the situation by either having better security, or to
> consider buying a better OS in future, they roll their eyes and make
> claims such as 'all machines have security problems...' etc.
> 
> If people bought houses without proper security, and discovered that
> their possessions were systematically removed or destroyed every few
> weeks (or had people camping in their lounge room), they would have a
> better grip on security, and would consider buying better locks.

Alternatively, consider cars. They had horrible security until a "name
and shame" campaign of intrusion testing by the insurance companies
forced manufacturers to install decent (but more costly) locks.

Before that only the insane retro-fitted better locks to their new
cars, even though the one's provided by the manufacturer were poor.

You'll note that this situation was seen as the fault of the car
manufacturers, not the car owners.

Similarly, I'd argue that computers shouldn't need their owner to
do *anything* to make them secure. Owners should even be protected
whilst behaving foolishly. Anything else is a failure by the
computer manufacturer.

Cheers, Glen