Virus writers jailed.

quote:

On a brief reading it looks to me like better regulation of the nuclear power industry could more effectively address the safety issues involved than sending boys to gaol in fair England.

merging this with what you've posted in the other thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Change the paradigm. Write administrator permissions for access to critical parts of the operating system.

so are you also suggesting that we shouldn't punish thieves because their victims should have taken better protective measures? Maybe we shouldn't punish murderers either - their victims could have learnt self-defence.

Every lock on every door in the country is breakable. Does that mean that rather than locking up burglars we should be pointing the finger at lock manufacturers?

I've just been rushed into casualty suffering from heat exhaustion brought on by the suit of armour I've been wearing - but no stab wounds.

Success !!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Deane

Your argument, if I read it correctly, is that its OK for them to hack into other peoples computers, and wreak whatever damage they want, because its easy to do so?

So, by analogy: its easy to buy axes. No problem if people want to bury them in the skulls of complete strangers - its easy, so why worry?

M

M

I cannot but comment that if your reading of my argument leads you to think that I have made a statement from which a proper inference can be drawn that I think it is OK to write computer viruses then you need to go back to school - or at the very least read my posts again.

Analogies are fine - but no proof is in them; just illustration - so I am not going to waste typing time answering the illustrations.

Don't get me wrong; property damage is an acceptable level of harm for which to involve criminality and sanctioning power. I just think that the ubiquity of both computers and Microsoft operating systems ought to bring the same level of regulation to bear on the writers of the operating system. However, that is another proposition altogether.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I just think that the ubiquity of both computers and Microsoft operating systems ought to bring the same level of regulation to bear on the writers of the operating system. However, that is another proposition altogether.

These dudes went to jail because what they did was criminal. It's not criminal to write an operating system is it?

Thanks goodness there are no aliens looking for the achilles heel of the human race prior to invasion. (we hope)

Perhaps what the world really needs instead of endless security patches is a total and catastrophic crash? Short-lived and self-healing. Not bad enough not to destroy the world as we know it. But enough to end the blinkered, global complacency.

Is it technically possible to get Bill Gates onto the steps of MSHQ.com with a very red face and an apology to the connected world?

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I just think that the ubiquity of both computers and Microsoft operating systems ought to bring the same level of regulation to bear on the writers of the operating system. However, that is another proposition altogether.

These dudes went to jail because what they did was criminal. It's not criminal to write an operating system is it?

Quite right. My post was badly worded. There should be some regulatory framework that requires Microsoft to sell a merchantable product. Criminality isn't appropriate.

quote:

I just think that the ubiquity of both computers and Microsoft operating systems ought to bring the same level of regulation to bear on the writers of the operating system.

So just because we use a microsoft operating system that has a vunerability within its programing that is not proof against a virus Microsoft are as much to blame as a virus writer?
That arguement holds little water with me I'm afraid. Having been on the receiving end of one of those things in person and have witnessed first hand the utter devastation it can cause, simply because they have found a weakness within a program?
The program works absolutely fine till they mess with it WITHOUT MY CONSENT!
Lock em up & chuck away the key.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:

quote:

I just think that the ubiquity of both computers and Microsoft operating systems ought to bring the same level of regulation to bear on the writers of the operating system.

So just because we use a microsoft operating system that has a vunerability within its programing that is not proof against a virus Microsoft are as much to blame as a virus writer?
That arguement holds little water with me I'm afraid.

That is not my argument. It is an extension of my argument that you have drawn; but it is not my argument.

quote:

The program works absolutely fine till they mess with it WITHOUT MY CONSENT!

This is the boundary layer where the closer one looks the more blurry the edge. You provide only tacit consent to nearly every single event that takes place within your computer - unless you are some kind of uber-expert, that is. The results are where your express consent is to be found.

quote:

Lock em up & chuck away the key.

Indeed. Thank God for lawyers, guns and money eh?

Isn't it ironic that the role model for virus writers was a young american with enough money for a decent defense?

What a damn shame he wasn't an impoverished New Orleans citizen with a chip on his shoulder about living life in the slums. He would probably have got the death sentence with no appeal.

You get the legal (and operating) system you deserve?

quote:

This is the boundary layer where the closer one looks the more blurry the edge.

A virus is not some form of fractal.

A virus infected my pc.

It wrecked it. Totally.

It was not the fault of the operating system.

It was the fault of the virus.

That virus was written by someone to cause as much damage as possible.

I care not just what your arguement actually is, the person who wrote that virus should be in jail as far as I am concerned.

QED?

QED

Leave your car or house unlocked - it's your fault. Can't understand the logic at all of that one though - they shouldn't be ATTEMPTING to test your security, it's your property after all........

Thieving gits manage to overcome your proven and rated security - it's their fault. Simple.

Mr G. should have ensured that his software was robust enough to deter the "hobbyist" hacker and safeguard the countless millions of customers that he intended to secure.

Neglect is negelect - I do believe that there are laws to address this in all walks of life apart from Computer Software ........

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Analogies are fine - but no proof is in them; just illustration - so I am not going to waste typing time answering the illustrations.

If somebody comes up with an analogy that pisses on my chips, I'll remember this form of evasion. So much easier to pretend to rise above it.

Funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks.

I am always amused when people jump straight to the use of extraordinary and stretched analogies as a kind of short cut reductio ad absurdum approach to argument/enquiry. Tends to make me appreciate even more the latitude, dicretion and training given to the people who run Western democracies.

Play the board. The point is computer viruses not axes in heads or murder. Why the ? should I stoop to answer your stretched analogy just because you used it?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:

quote:

This is the boundary layer where the closer one looks the more blurry the edge.

A virus is not some form of fractal.

A virus infected my pc.

It wrecked it. Totally.

It was not the fault of the operating system.

It was the fault of the virus.

That virus was written by someone to cause as much damage as possible.

I care not just what your arguement actually is, the person who wrote that virus should be in jail as far as I am concerned.

Trust is what you invest in the people who wrote your operating system. I say it is misplaced.

The sky in my world isn't black and it isn't white.

Whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Deane

Your argument, if I read it correctly, is that its OK for them to hack into other peoples computers, and wreak whatever damage they want, because its easy to do so?

So, by analogy: its easy to buy axes. No problem if people want to bury them in the skulls of complete strangers - its easy, so why worry?

M

I don't understand the connection between axes being buried in the heads of complete strangers and computer viruses. One is a crime against life and limb; the other a crime against property.

Please bear with me and do me the service of talking me through how your analogy bears one whit on the topic at hand and I will attempt to answer it - unless it refutes my argument in which case I will admit same (and send you a box of delicious fruit in the mail).

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I don't understand the connection between axes being buried in the heads of complete strangers and computer viruses. One is a crime against life and limb; the other a crime against property.

well you seem to have conveniently ignored my points then...

and to save you looking, here it is again

so are you also suggesting that we shouldn't punish thieves because their victims should have taken better protective measures? Maybe we shouldn't punish murderers either - their victims could have learnt self-defence.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

I don't understand the connection between axes being buried in the heads of complete strangers and computer viruses. One is a crime against life and limb; the other a crime against property.

Please bear with me and do me the service of talking me through how your analogy bears one whit on the topic at hand and I will attempt to answer it - unless it refutes my argument in which case I will admit same (and send you a box of delicious fruit in the mail).

OK Deane. How about my analogy? How about burglars breaking less than perfect house locks?

To be honest I sort of understood your original point. I didn't agree with it but it was the sort of comment somebody unfamiliar with the world of computers and the impact they have on modern life might have made - a pair of young lads playing games - what's the real harm in that? Unfortunately you've dug yourself into a big hole now and frankly I'd suggest you throw away the shovel and come out with hands up. If you genuinely don't appreciate the potential damage hackers and virus writers could have on us all then there's no point in arguing with you. A sensible argument requires both parties to have some knowledge of the subject and I'm sorry but it looks like in this case you just don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, try this for an analogy.

Imagine a tool. A very complex tool - but nothing more or nothing less than that.

The tool is very versatile and very useful to many people in many walks of life. The tool isn't made in one place like a spanner but is the product of an advanced industrial complex and many different types of expert must take part in its design and manufacture.

Given the complexity of the tool it is very rare to find a savant who knows completely how the tool works - rather , it is more common to find people whose understanding is limited to one or two aspects of its design or use. The preponderance of end users of the tool don't usually know too much about how the tool really works and instead rely upon the manufacturers to build a dependable and well thought out tool so that they don't have to worry about what is going on inside the tool for it to work for them.

Many years ago a type of metal fatigue created by aliens turns up and starts buggering up tools all over the world. The metal fatigue is a "designer" metal fatigue but the tool designers and manufacturers are straight onto it and have tools everywhere inoculated in a jiffy. Sadly, though, many tools are broken or lose precious utility or storage of grommets in the mean time.

After several years of new designer metal fatigues turning up constantly, one of the world's largest producers of the most commonly used socket-sets for the tools is still ignoring the impact of designer metal fatigues on their socket sets. Even though the tools themselves are ok after a bout of fatigue the tools aren't really useful without a good strong reliable set of sockets to fit on the end.

The socket sets are also very complicated and require large numbers of people to design them - just like the tools. The socket sets contain many different parts and very few end users have any idea what is really going on - but they trust the socket set designers - they know that the socket set guys have been aware of the designer fatigue issues for quite some time but still they get hit by the designer fatigues sent by the aliens.

The producers of the socket sets keep telling the end users to protect their own tools as much as possible and the end users keep buying socket sets that keep being built in very much the same way and churned out at very little cost - with new, ever more complex and better branded and marketed versions that are really just more coding added to old socket sets.

The end users keep blaming the aliens.

Are the aliens malicious or misguided?

Although corporate antipathy isn't misplaced it shouldn't detract from the more salient assertion of 'right and wrong'.

This is what the courts are [supposed] to determine, and I feel that all to often virus writing has been seen as mischief-making rather than criminal. Personally, I think this undermines, and is out-of-context with the huge potential damage it can cause, economic and otherwise. It's also created a huge ‘virus protection industry’ evidenced by the bloody McAfee pop up that I can't get off of my PC. Surely, the turnover of this industry is hugely out of proportion to the justice assigned to those that created the need?

Regards to all, an interesting and enlightening thread.

Dave

Deane,

I'm not smart enough to think of analogies, so let's forget those.

If I come round your house and put a hammer through your PC, it doesn't work because I deliberately did something to damage it.

Now suppose I send you an email that you open because it says it's from someone you know and trust, and it then deletes all the contents of your "My Documents" folder, or emails me all your personal files, to my mind I've still done something to deliberately damage your PC.

Forget flaws and vulnerabilities in the operating system and things the user could do to protect themselves for a moment, because regardless of those, without the virus, my files would still be there.

So does the fact that there isn't any physical damage somehow excuse it?

Paul

Paul

Absolutely not. There is no excuse for virus writing, It is damage done willfully, malicious and wrong.

But I have not claimed otherwise in this thread.

It is very tiresome to have to carry on a conversation this way. Read my posts. There is nothing I have said that excuses the creation and propogation of malicious code.

Every contributor wants me to answer their questions, extensions and extrapolations of my position but nobody will answer my fairly simple question: Viruses and malicious code of all types are a known problem and have been around for years now. Windows is an operating system that seems very vulnerable to viruses when compared to other operating systems. Windows hasn't really changed to address the exigencies of the hostile environment in which the connected computer operates and has operated in for years and through several incarnations of the Windows platform. Is that ok?

Is Windows, given these problems alone, still a merchantable product?

Computer viruses, like their organic bretheren, evolve & change constantly to try & outwit those that try & make a safe, working platform. Much as it pains me to say, windows HAS evolved & is arguably better now and less vunerable to infection than it was a few years ago. It still begs the question as to WHY you think it has to be made so inpenetrable? No virus writers = no need to do this.

Are you willing to state that windows (XP ME ETC) is not a merchantable product?

Virus writers do so with one aim. To cause as much frustration, damage and cost as is possible. That in my book is plain wrong.

Do you think that an operating system could be written / coded that is COMPLETELY virus / hacker proof & still be usable on the internet/home environment?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
Are you willing to state that windows (XP ME ETC) is not a merchantable product?

No, I'm not willing to state that. I am interested in discussion more than I am interested in final proof and I entertain large doubts about my position in this matter.

quote:

Virus writers do so with one aim. To cause as much frustration, damage and cost as is possible. That in my book is plain wrong.

Undisputed.

quote:

Do you think that an operating system could be written / coded that is COMPLETELY virus / hacker proof & still be usable on the internet/home environment?

No. WHY do you ask?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Is Windows, given these problems alone, still a merchantable product?

Possibly not, it's hard to say that it is.

The problem is that people complain about it, but do nothing about it - nobody forces anyone to use a Microsoft Operating System.