Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vox_rox
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 running on my computer, or in my stereo, or what books I read, or anything that falls under the realm of Home Electronics. Period.
|
I think that's all fine and dandy, but have you considered the consequences? Suppose I were to exercise my right not to install a firewall and virus scanner, and as a result, I get infected with a worm that sends massive amounts of data to other computers, infecting them in the process (after all, they exercised their rights too). I would be criminally negligent, and should be held accountable for the results of me exercising my "rights".
I do not suggest that the government should be allowed to force you to install a certain program (no way!); I'm suggesting that the government can expect you to provide at least *some* protection. I'd say they can ask you install *a* firewall and *a* anti-virus program. They could probably go to the ISP for this, who can be legally required to provide such programs free of charge.
Now, if you still choose not to install such programs, it's your choice. However, any resulting damage is *your* responsibility too. I'd say a solution would be to force ISPs to remove internet access from computers that are spreading viruses, worms, spam, etc. Just like some companies are shutting down websites with illegal content. After all, when your (in)action results in damage to others, you are responsible for the results, and your damaging (in)activity should be stopped.
As I said: the end user is at least partly responsible.
Quote:
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 involved in Internet communications. 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 consequences 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?
|
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'd certainly think a lot of helpdesk people would applaud such a thing, though.
No, I'm suggesting your mother should be assisted. She should be told by her computer what not to do (like Windows XP's new firewall/security center). She should also be given free programs by her ISP, to help her secure her computer. If she truly can't understand how to read help files from XP, or install provided programs, I think it's fair to say that she should indeed not be using a computer. Why should everyone else suffer the negative consequences of her ignorance? Why should ISPs pay millions of dollars to solve a virus/spam/worm problem because a lot of computer users don't understand how to use their computer responsibly?
I'm certainly not suggesting that someone should physically take away her computer. I am suggesting that she shouldn't have (full) internet access if she can't understand the consequences.