> we start holding people liable for the damages caused by their zombified > Windoze box... Right now, they have almost no incentive to firewall > their systems, have an effective anti-virus program running, etc. If > you could get sued for the damages your box inflicts on others, people > who don't know what they're doing might start *asking* their ISP to stop > them from doing any harm and let them know if there's a problem. In the UK it is certainly the case you could sue an end user for negligence if their system caused you problems and they were not following reasonable standards of care. It does make a difference in the sense that company lawyers standard "cover arse" list includes firewall, anti-virus etc, but not really on end users. The thing is when you buy a car it is possible to drive it dangerously, it is possible to keep it in a dangerous state but as supplied the defaults are safety focussed if you follow common sense, and even more so if you read the owners manual. If you buy a PC install an OS and run it in the default manner this is less true. This is why I got default firewalling into Red Hat back when the idea was still controversial, this is why Windows copied Linux on this and on automated updates. > just nuts. The idiots who provide electricity and an internet > connection to a bot or zombie need to get charged for the pain they > allow others to get hit with. They aren't victims; they're part of the > problem. Usually they are both. Just like the owner of a dangerous car who trusted a dodgy mechanic. Alan
