Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Drops Blaster Author's Fine
bevo noted that Microsoft has dropped their fine against the author of the Blaster worm that DDoS'd Microsoft's web sites and hijaacked 50,000 computers. 225 hours instead of a 500k fine. $2200/hour seems like a good deal to me ;)
How can MS "fine" someone? Are they really that close to the government now that they can hand out their own judgement and punishment?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
The article also contained this:
Jeffrey Lee Parson, of Minnesota, was sentenced this year to 18 months in prison and 10 hours of community service.
What the hell is the point of a day's worth of community service when you are also serving 18 months in prison!?
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
Well, at least this kid didn't get a JOB offer from Microsoft. Seems he wasn't quite as lucky as the kid who hacked into T-Mobile and monitored Secret Service messages, only to get a job offer from them once he was caught...
...maybe when he matures and is looking towards real work, he'll consider a lucrative career in hacking government agencies, seems like breaking the law is rewarded nowadays.
Yeah, the community service I got stuck with was sticking towels in a dryer at the YMCA. The people there were pretty cool - the guy who ran their whole community service program at this YMCA started working there after he did community service there. It wasn't quite as fun as the thing that got me there in the first place, but it wasn't a horrible way to spend my evenings for few weeks either.
A better analogy would be if I made locks which, because of poor design choices, could all be easily opened with a screwdriver.
Then somebody breaks into 50,000 houses because they all used my inadequate locks.
The only fault of the homeowner would be trusting my product too much... but you can't really blame them for that either, since a lock manufacturer should know a thing to two about security!
=Smidge=
Show me where Microsoft makes the claim that their software is impregnable
Not all new computers are "fully backwards compatible" with the POS that they currently use.
For instance, they have a network of computers here that are still using FoxPro for DOS and some other old old DOS programs. Replacing the slow ass computer with a fast one presents a whole wack of problems that include the fast computer not being able to slow down to stay in sync with the other POSs.
So if you count all the support and maintenance to tie the new with the old, it's actually cheaper to spend the dough to rebuild the old crap.
I only wish life was that simple.
Live forever, or die trying.
So, MS isn't going to try to extract several hundred thousand dollars from someone with no money or prospect of getting that sort of money, because it would cost more to hire a thug to shake down the punk than they would get. Hmmm.
See, MS can make a good decision on occasion...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Or you can take it straight from the horses mouth [search for apple]. Sure looks like they do a lot of work for Apple. If we compared Apples 622 documents to Microsofts 670 documents, they are pretty equal. And thats not a fair since Apple only has 3% market share.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I fail to see how that analogy is better. Windows isn't a lock, it's a platform for work, entertainment, and sadly the deployment of business infrastructure. It has things roughly equivalent to locks, safes, and other such mechanisms of securing resources but then so does your house.
Your house also has windows, which more often than not are quite capable of being used to gain entrance regardless of what sort of lock you happen to insert into your door.
Now your windows are there intentionally, whereas the flaws in Microsoft software that permit others to take use of your computer's resources are unintentional, but both the windows and those bugs are a natural consequence of practical human endeavor.
People don't typically buy security-grade windows, the building materials that their homes are constructed with are typically not very sturdy to persistent attack, and few people opt to not have windows because as it turns out fresh air and exposure to natural light are both highly-sought. Microsoft, too, chooses to make tradeoffs of practicality when offering their software for sale, and like someone buying a house, the consumer willingly purchases the product despite that it is not impregnable for practical reasons.
If some douchebag breaks into your house, regardless of how you choose to secure, even though you and the builder of your home are slightly responsible in that you chose cost over security, the real culpability lies with the intruder. They shouldn't be there, and pointing out that they're only there because your house isn't impregnable is no more insightful than saying that you can die because you're mortal.
To use the normal
Remember this, "property rights" exist only because of our social conventions. Have you ever seen two dogs sharing a bone? Among animals, property always goes to the stronger one that wants it. So, to have any rights to your property, you should follow social conventions. One of these conventions is that you should take reasonable steps to protect your property when the circumstances make it necessary.
You may sleep with open doors if you live in a farm somewhere, but not in a poor inner city neighborhood. Likewise, you must be sure to lock your system if you ever connect to the internet. If you don't do it, then you are guilty of the crime of creating an environment where cybercrime propagates.
"I bet it's extremely hard for a convicted felon to work off a $500,000 debt."
... or is that not how it works in USA?
Since the fine is a civil issue, and not a criminal issue, if the criminal has any sense, he'll petition for his own bankruptcy before he goes into jail, and be debt-free by the time he leaves.