License to Surf, Take Two

NaugaHunter writes "A story on Yahoo asks Should [a] License Be Required to Go Online? It appears to be suggested by Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for Counterpane Internet Security Inc. 'It could be a four-year college degree, a one-month course. It might be a good idea.' The story also details efforts of some schools from simple orientation to threats of fines for spreading viruses, and questions exactly who would be responsible for keeping track of who is and isn't licensed." Not a new idea, but one that's going to keep coming up. Update: 09/13 18:11 GMT by M : Bruce Schneier notes that he isn't in favor of computer licenses.

Comments

All I can say is WOW.

[LinuxMan]

That is a bit too much control on our rights, in my opinion. I would think that if that can happen for the Internet, then it could also happen for TV, telephone, and any other type of communication device.

Though education is important, it is the software vendors who are really to blame for a lot of the problems... (i.e. RPC holes, etc) A lot of the propagation of viruses and worms is a result of software accessing flaws in the software, without user intervention.

Apple 10 GB iPod

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[Sneftel]

The TV and telephone are different, tho; nobody ever caught a virus from a telephone (Douglas Adams references aside), and you do in fact need a license to run a TV station. The point is that, as a computer user, you have the ability to unwittingly affect lots and lots of other people.

It's tempting to blame the vendors, and blame for stuff like the RPC holes should of course fall squarely on Microsoft's head, but keep in mind how successful trojan horses have been; some of the worst epidemics have required the uninformed cooperation of their victims.

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[SampsonSimpson]

Viruses and the holes they exploit are the responsibility of the programmers, and they are in a better position to fix these problems rather than trying to distribute the responsibility to users. While preventative maintenance on behalf of the users should be encouraged as much as possible, it should never become a pre-requisite to internet use.

It's plainly impractical, (Given the global nature of the internet, how do we go about giving one entity the responsibility to handle all of those registrations?) and it would implicate much privacy concerns.

Also, (and possibly more importantly) I think there are very important First Amendment concerns raised with a mandatory licensing scheme - The internet is a communication medium, and I'm not sure a licensing requirement will strike the correct balance between security/safe computing and free speech; In ACLU v. Reno the Supreme Court viewed the internet as a "unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication" and that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." The Court was concerned with the CDA and its censorship of pornography, but I think the logic applies to all forms of government restrictions on internet communications. I think the court recognizes the importance of the internet and its impact on speech, and but for compelling reasons, free speech will be given more deference over restrictions that provide dubious benefits.

I don't think virus/exploit free computing is compelling quite yet, because I think I am capable enough to prevent most exploits on my computer. Whether someone else prevents it from spreading or not is irrelevant to me - only I have the ability to prevent it from attacking me. I shouldn't blame you for sending me a virus, I should blame myself for not being able to prevent it from infecting my machine

I suppose it's different when an intrusion is per se harmful to a third party (for example, when I start harming the RIAA after a virus infects my computer and starts sharing music files) but those situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis anyway.

Basically, my point is that licensing internet use is a bad idea, and possibly unconstitutional. Let's not even consider it.

and no, IANAL.

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[rolocroz]

Phones can be dangerous; just ask CmdrTaco.

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[SW6]

The TV and telephone are different, [...] you do in fact need a license to run a TV station.

Interesting factoid: all telephone use in (at least) the UK is actually licensed. Sure, it's a class license (essentially the kit is licensed by virtue of it being idiot-proof enough to allow the unwashed masses to use it safely) but it's still a license. This license can be, and sometimes is, withdrawn from individuals or groups if they're causing problems with the system.

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Actually, it is NOT public infrastructure. The major backbones of the internet are privately owned and the companies that own them (such as AT&T) allow their free use. They make so much off just having this infrastructure for their own use that they can afford this.

Also, let us consider the fact that the US does NOT exclusively own the internet (or WWW) anymore. World-wide, remember? I think it is time that the US government stopped trying to regulate areas they have no business in. They have no right to tell us what we can say in conversation, in a letter, or in a phone call. The same should apply to the internet.

Re:All I can say is WOW.

[Mr. Slippery]

The Internet is really the opposite, though. As more people use it, it becomes more valuable, not less.

You sure about that?

I started using the net in 1988. I thought it would be really neat if someday everyone had e-mail.

I reconsider that with every penis enlargement spam that hits my inbox.

The Internet becomes more valuable as more knowledge traverses it; but as Zappa observed, information is not knowledge. Most of what's being added now is static, not signal.

While we're at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we start taxing email! Or perhaps data by the megabyte! Think of the revenues!

Re:While we're at it...

[Desert Raven]

and truly I dont think its a stupid idea

I do, it's an incredibly stupid idea.

I pay several thousand dollars a year to have a small handful of computers colocated so I can run email/web, etc efficiently. *I* paid for the computers, *I* pay for the bandwidth, and *I* pay for the storage. My users in turn, pay me for access to those systems.

Essentially, I own and operate the equivalent of a local post office. Who the hell has the right to tell me I've got to pay the government (or anyone else) to send email?

The Internet is not a public service to be taxed. It is almost entirely privately owned, with a standing "gentlemans agreement" between the owners that each will allow traffic to and from each others' property.

So unless you've got some bright idea for distributing that tax money to the folks like me who actually own and operate the equipment, you can take your email tax idea and put it someplace moist and dark.

Re:While we're at it...

[Enigma Deadsouls]

What about some kind of regulation (whether through the government or the telco) as to what kind of e-mail client would reside on the clients computer?

That would be a stupid idea. First there is the problem of people who use different os.. so this would mean if I chose to use an os thats not supported by the client I am screwed and can't send/receive emails? Then comes the problem of how trustworthy the government/telcos are. Remember carnivore? Wouldn't the government just love it if they could just make all email clents automatically send them email. Then what about encryption? Would options like PGP not be able to work? Maybe they would let PGP work however it would send the government the email pre-encrypted.. or better yet the government will give you the option of encryption in the client.. however an encryption with a known backdoor so the government can read it.

I'm sorry.. I just don't like the idea of a government/telco regulated/issued email client.

What about e-mails originating from overseas? Those wouldn't be taxed and therefore wouldn't really put much of a damper on spam coming from across the ocean.

Well then how would a government/telco regulated/issued client fix this problem? What gives the right to a government/telco to tell other countries what email client they must use? What if these countries don't comply? Does this mean all email from the countries would be blocked? That would really be pain in the ass for people who conduct international business.

The internet is a place of freedom... freedom to use whatever os/browser/email client/other I wish... lets keep it that way.

Re:While we're at it...

[ncc74656]

And does the spammer pay, or does the pour sap with the open relay just get their connection yanked and faced with a bill they (arguably) didn't deserve?

A luser who runs an open relay and gets socked with a huge bandwidth bill (or worse) on account of spammers using his mailer deserves whatever he gets. Setting up an MTA to only accept outbound mail from selected hosts is trivial, if the software is well-designed. With the access-control software that's available (whether it's an SSH tunnel, POP-before-SMTP, or whatever), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anybody to run an open relay.

Re:While we're at it...

[pompousjerk]

...I agree 110%...

Today just isn't a good math day for you, is it?

this article should be labeled

[Frymaster]

flamebait.

Re:this article should be labeled

[Serapth]

Actually... it is more a linux-esque type article. MS makes its billions off catering to the slobering masses... Linux is the soceity that tends to bash users for being too stupid to do anything... The whole "lets license users" type argument for surfing is a complete tech-elitest typical bs approach. Then again, you idiot proof something, the world builds a better idiot. The real answer is most likely to make a more modern, effective and adaptive education system... both in traditional school years, and there after.

That said, I agree... the article is total flame bait. Oh well.

Re:this article should be labeled

[hankaholic]

Linux is the soceity that tends to bash users for being too stupid to do anything... The whole "lets license users" type argument for surfing is a complete tech-elitest typical bs approach.

To some extent, possibly, although I've often seen Slashdotters stand up with comments such as, "What about people in China (et. al) using the Internet for purposes which aren't condoned locally? The Internet can be a way to communicate with the world despite the wishes of the local governance."

Given this viewpoint, many Slashdotters would realize (and vocalize about) the idea that requiring licensing from the locally ruling bodies could restrict speech in those localities in terrible ways.

It seems to me that Slashdotters often seem to hold freedom over security.

Blah. Blah and double blah I say.

[pavon]

First off this whole virus issue is just starting to get really bad. A few years ago it wasn't necisarry for the average user to be so vigiant. As it become necisarry, whose to say that they won't learn by collective experiance. And if you are going require licenses from anyone, lets start with the people writting poor software that is allowing the net to degrade the way it is? (and again whose to say that they won't improve on their own now that it is becoming more necisarry to do so).

But here's my real question. Why post such flaimbait? This article is just some nobody giving his foolish opinion in a non-influential news site. If this was on CNN, then i could kind of see posting it. It this written by a big name in IT, I could see posting it. If there was ANY chance that this guy would be taken seriously, i might understand posting it. But there is none. This article is pure flaimbait, and Bruce Schneier is a Nazi.

Just Hold Responsible

[2starr]

I help administer an apartment/dorm-ish complex at a university. Basically the approach we're taking is letting people know what's expected: virus checker, etc. If an incident occurs and we find the person wasn't taking adequate precautions, they get fined.
I don't think you can require people to do stuff like take classes, but if they're neglegent, they should be held responsible.

Re:Just Hold Responsible

[TwistedGreen]

So if everyone gets infected, does everyone get fined? I think it's ridiculous to get fined at all, let alone getting fined for deficiencies in software /you/ didn't write.

Re:Just Hold Responsible

[aardvarkjoe]

If an incident occurs and we find the person wasn't taking adequate precautions, they get fined.

They're not getting fined for deficiencies in software. They're getting fined for irresponsible behavior. What's wrong with that?

The problem isn't the users.

[Malor]

In essence, we are blaming users for things that aren't their fault.

The article talks about the need to install anti-virus software, and keep up on patches, and to read the fine print in click-through licenses to prevent spyware from being installed. All of these things need to be done to operate a computer safely, true.

But why the hell are they required? We are giving users HORRIBLE software that is prone to constant infection. Some companies are taking advantage of click-through licensing to hijack people's computers. And we're blaming USERS for not doing the right things?

That would be like making cars that exploded if you ran them at exactly 62mph for more than 12 continuous minutes, with brake systems on the outside of the car where anyone could walk by, flip a switch, and disable them, as well as aftermarket accessories that forced cars to drive on particular roads at particular times.... and blaming the drivers when cars blow up, can't brake, or cause traffic jams on certain roads.

People mostly just want to do email and read the web. We should be providing them software that does this with absolute security.

We are blaming users for faulty software.

Re:The problem isn't the users.

[tsg]

It's not a "black-and-white" issue. No software is 100% secure. No hardware is 100% secure. Users are going to have to patch their systems at one time or another. Users also have to know not to open attachments in email unless they're reasonably[1] sure it's not dangerous.

At the same time, software and hardware manufacturers (closed and open source alike) have to be diligent about shipping reasonably[1] secure products.

And let's not forget the people who supply the pipe through which the lusers with their horrible software are infecting every other computer on the planet. ISP's have to be more responsible for their users. Both in educating them and preventing them from being too dangerous when they do screw up.

All sides need to do their jobs better.

[1]For very large values of "reasonably"

Say nay to barriers to entry...

[Empiric]

Should License Be Required to Go Online?

No, but perhaps grammar skills should be required to work for the Associated Press...

Seriously, this is a terrible idea. This would open up chicken-and-egg problems across the whole range of learning endeavor computers and the internet offers.

The analogy of needing a license to drive a car is used repeatedly in the article, but I think that's not quite the right analogy; maybe requiring you to know how to rebuild an engine before you ever drive would be more accurate. One of the expectations mentioned is that you must know how to set up a firewall; is this really realistic to require before any unsupervised on-line time?

The internet is growing because it's accessible, reasonably. If I needed a license to buy a book, I might never have started reading--and a book is a more accurate analogy than a car.

Put the responsibility for viruses where it belongs, on the network admins and software vendors, not the newbies. Everybody's got to start somewhere.

Re:Say nay to barriers to entry...

[Xoid629]

The other major problem with the car analogy is that driving a very heavy piece of equipment at high speeds is dangerous not only to the driver but also to any anyone else around. What you do online may be annoying or troublesome, but it is extremely unlikely to kill anyone. (And requiring licences to simply use a computer seems utterly insane -- the article seems to imply that this might be part of the idea, although it may just be that the author personally can't distinguish between using a computer and being online.)

Anyway, I think the idea of trying to control access to the general internet is ridiculous, but I do wonder about the possibility of having alternate network(s) (probably running of top of the normal internet). A system that limited use a bit (without being too restrictive) and also discouraged commercial interests would be great in many ways -- something like the early internet, I guess (although I wasn't there so I don't really know). I'm not sure if a system like that would really be practical or necessary even a good idea, but I sortof like the general concept.

Gasp!

[Weatherman-au]

You mean the "Internet Driver's Licence" isn't a real licence for that there Interweb? Bugger, now I have to take it off my resume.

Well, you have to have a license...

[BattyMan]

To drive a car
to fly an airplane
to use any radio transmitter beyond minimal power walkie-talkies, cellphones or 802.11.

All these things are done to help enhance the safety of everyone using the medium.

The signal to noise ratio of the Internet (maybe I oughta make that noise to signal) is typical of things which are totally out of control...

Re:Well, you have to have a license...

[antiMStroll]

The manufacture of cars, airplanes and radio transmitters are also regulated by massive standards bodies and testing, far more strenuous than any training imposed on users. Doesn't it make more sense to start there if we're really concerned about enhancing "the safety of everyone using the medium"?

Godwin's law! Damn!

[SoTuA]

Bruce Schneier is a Nazi.

Damn! There I was, putting my finishing touches on my "+5 insightful" comment and BAM! the discussion is ended!

oh well... there'll be other threads...

Better idea

[rossz]

I think someone should have to take a course in the Constitution before making stupid fucking statements that would limit people's rights.

College degree??

[bob65]

It could be a four-year college degree.

Um, yes. I'm proud to be a Bachelor of Mouse-Clicking.

Our Own Network

[Heem]

When we, the technologicaly elite, make our OWN network, based on encrypted tunnels on the existing infrastructure - then we can choose what level of certification is required to interact with peers.

I'm serious.

Re:Can we

[enomar]

Driver's test!? What about having children?

If I need a four year degree to surf the web, what will I need to procreate? A Nobel prize?

Flamebaity, but not really flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

The point I think our OP is trying to get at here is that people have been talking about forcing licensing for all manner of things, from Internet licensing to licensing for having a baby.

The solution isn't licensing, it's education. Education isn't something that is achieved through licensing, it's learned through a concerted effort to make people aware of the problems. Licensing only achieves getting people aware of knowing the answers to a test.

Re:Can we

[Shadestalker]

I was going to rebut, but my ride is here - gotta go before he starts flinging feces at the neighbors.

So what do you DO with the license?

[wytcld]

Knock on the door.

"Please open up. We have reason to believe someone inside is online without a license!"

The license can't just be a smartcard, or everyone will just leave theirs in the slot so family and friends have access - and likely put the whole crew and half the wireless neighborhood on NAT behind them. So we're going to have to build biometric security into every potentially Net-connected device.

That will surely get the Dept. Homeland Security Seal of Approval. Let's have Microsoft build it so it really works!

Blaming the user

[metamatic]

Of course we're blaming the users. The users choose to purchase PCs running Windows.

When people choose to buy Pop-Tarts, microwave them, and then eat them, we feel they have nobody to blame but themselves for the burns. Yet somehow when they buy Windows, ignore the safety directions that tell them to keep up to date with software updates, and hose the Internet, everyone seems reluctant to blame the idiots.

Windows is not necessary. I've never purchased any Microsoft software, and I'm doing just fine. In my view, anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get. It's not like it's some big secret that Windows is full of bugs, hard to use and unreliable--just read any PC magazine, or look at the shelves full of books like "1001 Windows Annoyances" and "How To Get Out Of DLL Hell".

Re:Blaming the user

[LordLucless]

"anyone who decides to spend money on a PC running Windows deserves what they get"

And there are, like, so many options too. It's fine for me, I build all my computers from parts. But the truth is, most people buy ready-made, plug-em-in-and-they-work type boxes. And most of those come with Windows. Not to mention that anyone who wants to play most games these days has to run Windows. Or just the fact that they know windows, and are comfortable with it.

And lets face it, if clueless newbies adminned Linux boxes, they'd be almost as insecure Windows machines. Unpatched, permanently logged in as root, all files chmodded to 777 so they don't get any errors, no firewall, cause ipchains is just too tricky. I'd agree that Linux is a technically superior OS, but as we all know, technical superiority don't mean jack when it comes to the desktop market.

why bother reporting this? To fight it!

[twitter]

This needs to be reported because it needs to be combated. It need to be reported as long as "you need to keep up with the current patches and virus checkers and all that shit" is passed off as popular wisdom. M$ is trying to blame the user for it's own software failures and therby force restrictions on email, www, and all computer usage that would be benificial to themselves and harmful to free software.

The user is never at fault for poor software, especially closed source crap the user can't fix if they could or wanted to fix.

Virus checkers, email restrictions, firewalls and all that are in vain when faced with the reality of closed source distribution. I work for a small computer shop. The only software we can put on all the broken computers that come in for repair is the user's original software and any updates M$ lets you. The vast majority of computers out there run EOL'd systems like 95 and 95. Customers lack the skills needed to diagnose the problems or do the best fix, a wipe and reload. It cost them about $75 if they have all of their software, and they are loath to pay for the time it takes to load up all the patches and updates that won't protect them from next week's worm. I can't blame them for feeling that way. Nor can I blame them for wanting to email their friends. Those that have lost their software generally end up throwing their machine away or go find some nasty cracked copy of M$ shit because they don't want to spen the $109 and equpment purchase needed for an OEM copy of Windoze. The net result is the same in every case, boxes that are just as easy to bust as the day they were made. But, so what? Even the dilligent are getting burnt.

I have recomended Mozilla for people who absolutly must have M$. My little brother told me that an XP update broke Mozilla and made it terribly slow, but Netscape still works. Woot.

I'd recomend Debian or Red Hat and sell CDs for the same price as a driver disk, but my boss is worried about support. I'm not sure what kind of "support" could be worse than the mess most Windoze users now find themselves in. Still, he's the boss. The day, however, I can make money doing it, he's going to like it. I'm starting to think that the store's usual $4 per CD burnt and the 30 minutes it takes to install a dual boot of any linux system might be cheaper fixing Windoze. Blinding the windoze side to the network makes it last longer so that it can do the things it does well for the user.

I'm starting to see the path of least resistance here. Demo the system with Knoppix to prove hardware use. Blind Windoze, dual boot and set them loose. Actually doing something beats the hell out of bitching and moaning. It can work.

Re:I was gonna make a joke...

[LostCluster]

Let's face it... airline security would be a whole lot easier if they could get rid of most of the damn passengers and have a select group of 20 backround-check cleared people be the only ones flying.

When securing something equals destroying it, you've got a big problem...

No respect at all for Schneier, now.

[HBI]

For pete's sake, this has to be the most elitist article I have seen recently. Because Mr. Schneier knows what to do to keep his computer uninfected, let's blame the users and force them to be certified to be online.

Idiot.

How about blaming the actual target, the operating systems and flawed web standards that allow this. Look at certification authorities, browser, and OS vendors. I saw one of those hidden install ActiveX objects recently that has a Thawte signature. Why? Well, that CA's root cert is preloaded in IE so therefore, the signed ActiveX will install without any user intervention with default security settings.

What is wrong with this picture?

1. Why is Thawte issuing a certificate/signing code to/from a shady vendor like this?
2. Why does Microsoft let anyone with a signed ActiveX object install the thing without question, by default?
3. Why does the functionality to do so over the web exist in the first place? We know that scripting/file upload from untrusted Internet sources is the #1 security problem with end user systems. So why?

The problem was flawed assumptions at the outset. Microsoft assumed the Internet environment would remain benign, as it was in the early days of commercialization. Therefore, security was not a consideration. This has proven utterly false. The CAs figured they were in the business of printing up certificates for money. Check on the reliability of a vendor? Why, that would cost too much...so what are certificates and signing really worth? Not a whole hell of a lot. Yet we tell people to trust their money and credit card numbers to this intrinsically flawed system of 'trust'.

We, in IT in general, really need to reconsider all these flawed assumptions we have made and the bill of goods that has been sold to the general public. I have been doing end user support for 15 years now and I would be all too willing to blame this on the user. In this case we cannot. In the end, we have to realize it is not their fault. It is ours. We assumed things would stay the way they were, and they haven't.

Now let's fix it...invalidating the entire CA model and delegating that function to the government would probably be a good start. Have all certificates emanate from a government source or be considered invalid. That might actually work.

While we are at it, let's get the government involved in regulating operating system software in a formal fashion. Sure, I like the private sector and all, but it hasn't worked, has it? We have this huge security mess. Perhaps a greater degree of regulation is required to get us out of this mire, because market forces aren't going to fix the fact that Microsoft's operating system is woefully inadequate for today's Internet and most probably cannot be fixed while preserving backward compatibility for a meaningful number of applications.

The last two paragraphs were just ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure others could be arrived at, and better.

Blame the victim, eh?

[Safety Cap]

So, by your logic, if a woman gets gang raped and beaten to death, its her fault because she should've worn her burka and not gone out of the house unaccompanied by a male relative. Red-blooded, honest men cannot control themselves from the intoxicating effects of nearby females, and she should've known that!

... And shoot those who leave open relays/proxies

[Charles Dodgeson]

I would like to see a highly publicized case of holding some home broadband user responsible for the fact that their machine was hijacked to send spam or participate in some DDoS.

I've talked to too many people who've said, "I don't need to bother securing my home system because I've got nothing anyone would want." I've answered, "They want to use your machine to attack me." But the message doesn't sink in.

While these end users are being provided with crap systems, there is a market out there. If their choice of bad systems gets them severly spanked, they will start making demands of their providers.

All it would take would be a couple of high profile cases.

Re:Can we

[Anonymous Coward]

what will I need to procreate? A Nobel prize?

Panic not, aspiring scientist! First you'll need a girlfriend.

Give me a break

[Dr. Transparent]

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Do you really think that a stupid course is going to do anything towards limiting the amount of times users screw up? Half the time people screw up (or more) is because people are lazy. It won't matter if you make someone take a stupid course. They still have to actually do something to prevent problems.

Furthermore, the idea that a license will solve a problem is just plain idiotic. To suggest that "licensing" people prevent problems is a complete lie. While the author says "motorists must obtain licenses to drive", it is noteworthy that nearly 100% of all accidents occur by licensed drivers. Licensing would just be a new way for someone to tax me and a new excuse for people's own laziness.

If you want to solve these kinds of problems, build better software and prosecute dumb-ass virus writers and script kiddies like the little punk-ass bastards they are.

If you enter my house uninvited and threaten me I can shoot your ass dead. Why shouldn't it be the same way when someone breaks into my computer. Prosecute script kiddies.

What we do need!

[Cinematique]

People should have to get a license to have kids, not to surf the Internet.

Yeah, I said it.

Re:fsck those 4$$|-|013$

[The Spoonman]

Why do you think Linux doesn't have these security holes?

You're an idiot if you don't believe Linux has these security holes. It does, just try reading the changelogs of the kernel, of apache, of ssh, of most of the apps you use. They're there. The simple fact is that Linux isn't as wide-spread as Windows, so when there's a hole in Windows, it's exploited on millions of boxes. When one is found in Linux, it affects a very small number, so no one cares. Once Linux becomes widespread, you'll start to see the same kinds of issues, because there will always be hackers. It will also be a lot worse, because Windows is easy to patch, and it still isn't done...Linux, OTOH hand will always be beyond the capabilities of my grandmother. At least with Windows Update, she can keep her computer moderately safe.

As for buggy code, fuck, dude...the one that was responsible for blaster affected W2K, which is just under four years old. I, for one, am not about to wait for four years of testing to ensure EVERY fucking bug is found. Linux is also not immune to bugs, there are plenty to be found if you just open your eyes. And, don't give me the stale rhetoric of "well, if one is found, it's patched within 24 hours", that might be true, but the patch for blaster was released a full month before the problem.

Nope, I fear the day that Linux becomes the dominant OS. Things will only be much, much worse. Especially with dumb-ass pricks like you who a) don't help people fix their machines, you just whine about "well, it's your own fault, grandma, you use windows!" and b) are ignorant of the flaws in this system you love so much. It makes you immeasurably more ignorant and naive then they are!