🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <MPG.1502614f43a60eb798a00e@207.126.101.100>,
See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

>In article <lpRl6.3966$S25.57007@typhoon.sonic.net>, 
>spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
>> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>> 
>> On the contrary -- just as I applaud and welcome safe tires, I would
>> applaud and welcome safe computing.  Properly implemented, it would not
>> be limiting -- that's a common misconception.
>
>I more or less agree -- the problem of course is that from the
>perspective of the marketing people, security issues mustn't be 
>emphasized because of the fear that it will scare away potential
>buyers.  I'm convinced this has a lot to do with Microsoft's 
>attitude on security.

The flip side of security is safety, which sells in other fields (e.g.,
automobiles).  If that is the attitude, I think it's short-sighted.

>Much of the focus of Windows and IE revolves around coming
>up with features which either make the PC more TV-like/
>entertaining, or which optimize the ability for various
>entities to market to users. ...

Perhaps.  But I think it's also due in large part to ease of use
considerations, both to make features more accessible and to minimize
support costs, seasoned with a large dash of naivete (the downside of
depending so much on young turks that haven't learned the lessons of the
past).  To be fair, Microsoft is hardly alone in this regard.  Witness
the glaring security vulnerabilities recently found in WEP (Wired
Equivalent Privacy), a name that now sounds painfully naive, because
products were rushed to market without proper review of the standard.

>Therefore I'm not convinced (at least in Microsoft's case)
>that they will ever adopt the right attitude in this respect
>because to do so would be counterproductive from a marketing
>standpoint. (unless and until consumers start clamoring for
>it, which *could* happen sometime in the future.. maybe after
>a few high-profile people get hacked :-)

I would tend to agree.

>All that being said, I still think that if you choose to
>climb a rock, jump out of a plane, or scuba-dive, you should 
>be aware of the risks involved and how to mitigate them.  To 
>say it's "someone else's problem" is stretching the truth 
>just a bit.

I think it's more that people expect both industry and government to be
responsible by laying down basic rules of safe and civilized behavior,
so that real risks are minimized along with reasonable warnings of the
real risks that remain.  Hence the needs to get trained before sky
diving and certified before SCUBA diving.  I personally don't think
these are unreasonable expectations.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>