Why does this group have so much spam?
rt8396 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 01:08:46 CEST 2009
On Aug 30, 4:23 pm, David <71da... at libero.it> wrote:
> The owner of compromised PC should be responsible of his computer like the
> owner of a car is responsible of damages caused by its car.
> That owner should keep his computer clean as he *must* keep his car
> functional and safe.
Yes i agree but your logic is flawed. If someone cuts my brake lines
and i cannot stop who is to blame? Or if someone throws nails on the
highway and i crash, who is to blame? Obviously you cannot blame the
car owner. However if i let my brake pads wear out until they are
metal on metal and run over some poor old lady crossing the street --
well now you got me! ;)
But you cannot apply this logic when a hacker compromises someones
computer, it the same as cutting their brake lines. How can you
honestly expect that Joe computer user will know of this infection? Do
you even know where your brake lines are? Even hackers can be hacked
without ever knowing it! The only sure fire way is VM's or system re-
> Today most of the people consider cyber security an optional, but all of us
> pay for their negligence. Those people are externalizing to the rest of the
> world their costs in terms of SO updating, antivirus, firewall and
> knowledge. This is unfair.
Yes, keeping a running AV and proper updating i agree with...
> This is mainly a matter of sensibility and culture: in '50/60s active and
> passive car safety was an optional, today is a must.
> I think it's time to switch to responsible computing and the mail-tax would
> charge each person of its own costs and annoyances without affectig the rest
> of the world.
What, this is madness! If you have terrorist terrorizing your country
you don't tax the public when they blow up a shopping mall so you can
rebuild it! No you kill the terrorist in a harsh and painful manner
and make an example of them, then you seize there monies. You should
direct your anger to the proper internet security authorities(and more
importantly to the perpetrator's) and not the innocent victims of such
attacks. I want you to sit back and think very deeply about your
proposal here because it is horribly wrong.
It is so easy to just slap a tax on something, yes that will solve
> > If you want to avoid usenet spam and don't want to filter it yourself,
> > find a provider with more aggressive spam filter.
> This is not the solution. You are saying that if your neighbour makes loud
> noises you can not call police to impose him to cease but you can only make
> your home soundproof.
or you could go over and punch him in the nose, works every time for
More information about the Python-list