nanog mailing list archives

Re: Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers


From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:32:54 -0500

On 6/9/2010 12:17, Joe Greco wrote:
What I don't want to see which you are advocating... I don't want to see
the end users who do take responsibility, drive well designed vehicles
with proper seat belts and safety equipment, stay in their lane, and
do not cause accidents held liable for the actions of others. Why should
we penalize those that have done no wrong simply because they happen
to be a minority?

I agree, on the other hand, what about those people who genuinely didn't
do anything wrong, and their computer still got Pwned?

Fiction.

At the very least, if you connected a system to the network and it got Pwned,
you were negligent in your behavior, if not malicious. Negligence is still
wrong, even if not malice.

So, just so we're clear here, I go to Best Buy, I buy a computer, I 
bring it home, plug it into my cablemodem, and am instantly Pwned by
the non-updated Windows version on the drive plus the incessant cable
modem scanning, resulting in a bot infection...  therefore I am 
negligent?

Do you actually think a judge would find that negligent, or is this
just your own personal definition of negligence?  Because I doubt that
a judge, or even an ordinary person, could possibly consider it such.

One can argue (and I will) that there is indeed some culpability because
the buyer bought the cheapest version of everything and connected it to
a negligent provider's system.


-- 
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
the vote.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:  http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

        


Current thread: