Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:47:50 EDT, James Baldwin said:
> in order to provide the best connectivity possible, measured by least 
> obstructions perceived by the user at the lowest price point, at the 
> highest margin possible we need to relocate the operating cost to the 
> appropriate party. Providing all users with unfiltered transit 
> increases our operating expense without providing the customer with any 
> added benefit. Providing a subset of users with unfiltered transit when 
> necessary pushes that expense onto the users requesting additional 
> service.

It would seem that relocating the costs of doing extra (filtering, etc)
*should* be passed on to the people who necessitated the extra handling by
running software that needs extra protection.  As it stands, you're charging
the people who (in general) aren't the problem more for you *not* to do
something...

Car insurance companies figured this out long ago:  They charge extra premiums
to those customers who incur them more cost - that's why male teenagers pay
more than middle-aged people, and why people with multiple tickets pay more.

Would any car insurance company be able to stay in business long-term if they
raised the premium for middle-aged men driving boring Toyota sedans because
somebody else's teenager wrapped their Camaro around a tree?  Why is it
perceived as reasonable in this industry?

Attachment: _bin
Description: