🚀 go-pugleaf

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

In <976mhu$itt$1@news.panix.com>, snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott
Norwood) wrote:

>In article <4ald9tgo6bku8v49seqqgjk22064nqdetr@4ax.com>,
>Mike  <no@no.dont.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Oh, so its the victims fault? Clueless they might be...so what? Do you
>>know all there is to know about everything you own? Are you positive the
>>vehicle you drive doesn't have a defect that could injure yourself or
>>another? Trust is the key word here. How about blaming the software
>>developer for the design decision, or lack thereof, for shares being
>>automatically exposed to the 'net.
>
>Are you implying that bad drivers should sue car manufacturers for
>every accident for failure to make a vehicle that is accident-proof?
>
>Seriously, if you don't know how to drive, you shouldn't be behind
>the wheel.  If you don't know enough to run a reasonably secure OS
>and configure it properly (and can't find someone else to help you
>do so), you shouldn't be running a computer on a public, untrusted
>network with any expectation that the OS will not be compromised.
>
>This isn't "blaming the victim" so much as it is common sense.

With all due respect, this is a matter of defective design, not cockpit
error.  When someone gets seriously injured because Firestone tires
separated, you blame Firestone, not the hapless driver that was
unfortunate enough to buy and use them.  The problem here is that
computers being sold to average people are inherently and inexcusably
insecure.  Average people shouldn't have to be security experts to use
computers on the Internet any more than they should have to be
automotive experts to drive a car on the road.

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