Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
My answers to your questions:
2) They wouldn't look like a totalitarian regime. It's time people started realizing that owning a computer also gives you some responsibilities. I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable to cut internet access to computers that aren't well protected, on the basis that these computers can and will be abused. It's kind of like the government making rules about car travel, such as maximum speeds, minimum safety guidelines; if you don't follow the rules, they'll give you a ticket. Do you consider that a sign of a totalitarian regime too?
|
Well, when it comes to travelling by car where there is imminent risk of death or injury, of course rules are important and I would never call any govenment totalitarian nased only on the fact that they implement and enforce traffic laws. Further to my comment, I realize I may have overstated my case using words that may have been too sweeping. However, I do not think that forcing individuals in their homes to have certain software on the computers is either realistic, nor is that the role of government, and I would certainly NOT allow a government to tell me what I should and should not be runing on my computer, or in my stereo, or what books I read, or anything that falls under the realm of Home Electronics. Period.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
3) That's a rather biased statement, isn't it? MS' operating systems may not be perfect, but they're hardly the "least secure" OSes. But yes, they'll need to (further) improve their security, as they're doing right now. On the other hand, it's still the end user that has to update his system, and if this user fails to do that, you can hardly blame Microsoft. Which brings us right back to my initial statement: the end user is at least partly responsible.
|
I can see your point here, but there is one key weakness here that you have not though about, and that is my Mother. Or yours for that matter. She is unaware of what kind of technology is invloved in Internet communcaitions. In fact, she's fairly oblivious to almost every aspect of computer technology, but since the "every home with a PC" con has gained speed, she has one, whether she knows how to use it or not, or even needs it or not. So she basically has no clue what a "patch" is, what constitutes a secure system, or even the consequneces of sending a piece of e-mail. And I would be willing to bet that there are millions, maybe tens of millions of people just like her, who will NEVER know what is going on with their computer.
So, your suggestion would be that anyone without some level of computer certification would be prohibited from owning/operating a computer in their house until such time as they can demonstrate that they know how to use one safely. Is that correct?
Peace,
Pierre