Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft VP Suggests 'Net Tax To Clean Computers
Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing, Scott Charney, speaking at the RSA conference in San Francisco, has floated an interesting proposal to deal with infected computers: Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine. Using taxes to deal with online criminal activity is not a new idea, as demonstrated by last year's Louisiana House vote to levy a monthly surcharge on Internet access to deal with online baddies."
Most of the major ISPs in the US are providing a free brand-name anti-virus product if users will just download it. Even if you don't get that, it's about $15/year to stay up to date at Best Buy. The problem here isn't that people can't afford anti-virus... it's that they can't be bothered to use it.
Maybe the route some universities have taken of fines and downtime for those caught spreading malware or spam, knowingly or not, is what we need.
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
Do Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?
Who do they think they are, bankers?
Considering 99% of all infected machines out there in userland are running some Microsoft product; Microsoft SHOULD be taxed for each and every one of them, It is fortunate we have such an industry leader as Microsoft, fessing up to their own damn foolishness and offering to make good.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?
$ make available
A special "insecure software" levy on software responsible for more than 10% of "owned" machines on the net would be more appropriate.
Microsoft should get taxed every time one of their crappy products lets in yet another piece of malware.
Spend whatever it takes to find those that are behind the problem. Then kill them. Then start on the scammers that target the elderly.
It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems."
On the other hand, if the charges were discounted for running non-MS systems, I might change my mind.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
1. Start a new program
2. Institute a new tax
3. Collect the tax, but don't put it in a lockbox.
4. Taxes are thrown into the general fund, where they're used to buy favors from senators and congressmen.
5. Program has no funding, is cut back and made useless except for an overpaid bureaucracy that does nothing.
6. When fiscal conservatives propose scrapping the program, they are instead blamed for the shortfall and taxes are raised to "fix" it.
7. Repeat from step 3.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Police: "This is a fine store you have here"
Shop Owner: "Yes, I'm quite proud of it."
P: "It would be a shame if something happened to your store... But for only 20% of your gross, we could protect it."
SO: "But, I have no crime in my store. I have state of the art security cameras, proximity alarms, private security guards. I've spared no expense and made sure my store is secure"
P: "True, but you see there's another shop down the street and it gets broken into every week. Someone has to pay for that."
Majority of the infected machines run MS software. Let MS pay one quarter of their revenue as the tax. This helps everybody in the world. Follow Bill Gates MS and do good to the world like him
What, are they TRYING to piss off their shareholders? I've never heard of anybody who wants to essentially tax themselves...
Bought the ticket, taking the ride.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I would be livid if where I lived I was taxed to disinfect computers while healthcare was a mess.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
For running not running windows? or tax surcharge for running windows?
Why is it if you drive a car that's unsafe to operate and something happens, nobody thinks twice about the fact that it's the owner's responsibility and when they are hit with a fine everyone just nods, but if it's a computer that's in poor condition (ie: infected), it's an issue that the community must bear to clean up. I realize that not everyone is technically adept and able maintain their machines adequately themselves, but I don't want to pay for them. They can hire someone to maintain their machines for them, much like most people do for their cars now, and perhaps the fine could be waved or reduced if they prove that they were current on their maintenance and somehow still got hit. Hell, it'd be a potentially decent revenue stream for repair-shops and even ISPs that want to offer some kind of maintenance package.
Of course, the problem here is that people don't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy. They'll scream blue-murder if they're told that they actually have a responsibility, both financially and in how they operate their machine. Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven, buy it, and if it breaks, replace it, but never, ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Or they could take their brilliant little plan and shove it. Then I will have to take care of my own security. I know it sounds impossible for a simpleton like myself to accomplish, but I'm sure I'll manage somehow.
Why don't we focus on the bad guys. None of the Microsoft, or Adobe, or any other, software imperfections are a criminal problem until some ass tries to steal something using it. It's like blaming a car maker for a hit & run accident. Blame the criminals!
I support it if I get a tax credit for not having any windows machines.
There are lots of free anti-virus options, no need to even pay $15.00 a year.
I have been using Avast for years now, its great. AVG also still has basic protection for free also.
It's not the cost, the main reason people have no anti-virus or out of date anti-virus is because they don't care enough or understand enough to care.
The trial-ware anti-virus approach also is something I think should be stopped. Too many people think "Oh Mcaffee was included with my computer, I don't have to get an anti-virus." Not knowing that it was a trial version and it stopped working two years ago.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
when you've become so big that you can viably get the government to forcibly extract money from people to facilitate you keeping your market share
Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine.
First off, there are two separate issues, one is that anyone can get sick, and in general, only badly configured -Windows- machines get malware. Yes, you -can- make Mac/Linux malware but other than a few isolated issues they aren't big deals.
Secondly, the computer industry and the internet should not be taxed! I don't mind paying for -some- taxes because I get benefits because of it, defense, roads, etc. But what positive government involvement in the internet has occurred post-1990? Other than trying to regulate it, crushing internet freedoms and privacy the government hasn't done shit.
Taxes should be akin to buying something in the store, you pay money, you get benefits. I pay taxes, I get protection, freedom to bear arms, unrestricted freedom of expression, etc. Just like I pay $200 and get a new Wii console.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
That's pretty funny. What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get? And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?
Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services. Obviously, the private sector should be handling those services too, right? You like toll roads, right? Blackwater can easily do the job of the military, why are we letting the incompetent government protect us?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
FTS -
Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry...
I know most healthcare systems are BAD, but classifying them as malware is going a little far, isn't it ?
Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas, then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages. All engineering fields have that, why not IT? If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it. No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it's livelihood.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
... I bought a Mac.
Others I know paid the tax by installing Linux instead of using the Windows OS that shipped with their computer.
If they want to add a tax, perhaps they should refund those of us who do not use Windows.
I would prefer that software vendors be held accountable for their products. Every other industry is.
Though this is what former Cyber Security Czar Richard Clarke said at Blackhat in Vegas around 2003, and well... look what happened to his career after that.
"Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
Microsoft would.
--Jason--
This via door to door searches?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You shouldn't look at this as paying for someone else's mistakes, but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us. We all would benefit from reduced spam, scams and malware, we all should pay. Given that spam makes up over 80% of Internet traffic, we could all download far more porn, far more quickly were spam to disappear.
This couldn't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do. Sure, I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus, but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they don't understand.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In today's healthcare system, one who pays for insurance can generally opt to go or not to go to the doctor if he or she is ill. However, if somebody is deemed extremely infectious or a harm to his/herself or others, there is precedent for authorities to force a person to accept treatment and quarantine. I think that people are less likely to address computer security concerns (particularly computers which are being used as bots to attack or spam others) than illness in their actual person. So what would be the end outcome? The potential that one's computer could be confiscated for cleaning? Certainly admirable from a security standpoint, but a gross violation of privacy and personal property as we know it today. This would take a tremendous rethinking of how critical our network infrastructure is to society and the liability of individuals for computer security. I personally would not want my computer removed from my home if I were to get an infection which I myself could clean within an hour or two. This opens the door to some interesting interpretations of the law and public defense.
OK, I admit it's mostly an experiment for me to see what happens, but I also took offense to the endless popups from the McAfee software that was installed on my netbook when I purchased it.
I don't tend to read email on the machine so it's not too susceptable to a bad attachment. I do download OSS goodies like Gimp, but I tend to only get them from places I trust, like sourceforge. I do use windows update. So I'll find out in a year or so if I really should have used the anti-virus. I suspect that the machine is faster without it and quite frankly I don't think I felt that using it removed all risk from malware.
I operate the PC from behind a firewall so right now I suspect the biggest threat is from infected usb thumb drives.
Nullius in verba
We may *refer* to it as computer "care" and computer "health", but that doesn't mean it's anywhere near the importance of human healthcare. I think it's more in line with vehicle care than human health care and in that same vein, should we then have universal car repair? Computers are devices upon which we rely greatly.
There should be no universal tax for someone (oh, gee... maybe Microsoft?) to delve into our computer, stumbling across private information, all in the name of "health". If I can fix my own car without cost to anyone, if I can fix my own computer without cost to anyone, then I will do it.
I think the previous posters have it right: Tie an optional service to the ISP and call it a day. Have such a service provide regular scans and alerts. In severe cases, quarantine the computer. But it should ALL be optional.
I run Mac OS X, you insensitive clod! Why should I pay to clean up YOUR CRAPPY OS?
Hey, here's an idea: Why not fix WINDOWS so it's not such promiscuous virus/trojan/worm whore?
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
And I'd bet that they are also offering to collect that tax and manage it and the "cleaning" process.
You know, Linux CDs are free. And, if our schools would get off their butts and realize their students would have an advantage if they were using and learning from open source software then there would also be a huge supply of cheap and eager youngsters ready to clean off the infected Windows botnets and install a version of GNU/Linux. No tax required. Oh wait, our gov and businesses are financially and secretly tied to Microsoft Windows so this kind of thing would also be a threat to them. Is this democracy at work or what.
And all you AC Microserfs can suck dry toast with your dumbass posts. flame on.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If I smoke, I am at risk, so my premium goes up. If I use MS products the same applies. Why should I be taxed if i am already conscious and proactive about being safe?
Why not using something similar to a carbon-trade approach. Say you use Linux or Macs, you are already contributing to a safer environment. You can sell your shares to more "polluting" users (of MS products). That would be more fair, and in honesty more appropriate.
So a fully patched system (ie. contains patches for the known vulns) is unhackable? Then
why oh why would they ever need to patch ever again? Fun?
And its not even the known vulns that are patched. Just the ones they felt like addressing
in this release.
And how are these patches protecting against other threats that are not related to specific
software defects, but to built in weaknesses brought on by poor design decisions. Things
that we know are close to being defective design, but cannot be patched because it would
mean re-writing the whole thing from scratch and orphaning the software applications.
If people received a Windows install disk with their computer, they would be able to wipe and re-install the OS whenever it got too crudded up.
Windows is full of security holes. Including free anti-virus (Windows Security Essentials), instead of making it a download, and making it harder to
install malware without a user's knowledge, would go along way towards fixing a completely preventable problem.
Windows' susceptibility to malware is solely Microsoft's fault, and well within their ability to remedy. *They* should be paying the tax, not their customers.
Apple's OS X, Linux, BSD and Solaris seem not to have this huge malware problem.
If Microsoft OSes are responsible for 99% of all infections, then if they pay for 99% of the tax, that'd work.
This attack has been 10 years in the making. It is the oldest trick in the book: Create a problem, manage the solution. Microsoft created the problem by producing an intentionally defective by design product, that led to the creation of massive the botnets. Now they want to manage the solution.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The banks have all our tax money. How about the banks are made to pay for virus cleanup?
"...and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine."
Inspection?
Of what, and by what means?
I hope this isn't what my paranoid, overly-cynical mind is translating it as.
Maybe the concern should not be so much about the idea of taxation, but what those taxes are actually going to be spent on.
A corporation builds an OS that is on 90% of all personal computers and is the root entry/cause for most of the viruses out there but they have no desire to make it secure so they just want the gov to introduce a tax onto the same consumer they sold this OS to? WTF?
Simpler answer would be for the GOV to create a mailing compaign advising the people to switch to a more securely designed OS to save on taxes.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That'd be like getting an environmental surcharge on riding a bicycle.
(But hey, I'm tempted to agree with taxing IE/Outlook.)
* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.
And to change the default drive from 'C' to something else.
'C' drive for OS, other drives for applications. I don't know what good it'll do me because if the 'C' drive goes, so does the registry and I think just about all of my installations of applications would have to be installed again anyway. The '.ini' file worked great in previous versions of Windows and OS/2 - geeze!
If the guy at MS who invented the registry is reading this, would you please commit Seppuku with a plastic picnic knife? Thank you.
Oh, you don't have to take out your family, the shame you brought on your family and ancestors for the next millennia is more than punishment enough.
Isn't the solution switching to more reliable and secure OS?
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
that all those bucks spent on an MS license only entitle you to a bug-ridden, unsafe operating system.
Write shit code, make the world pay to clean it up..
I have an idea. How about a tax for shoe shining, because some people want their shoes shined but they don't want to pay 25 cents for it, and they are too lazy to do it themselves. That would be about equivalent. Read on....
It's necessary to charge a tax for health care because people get sick and we it's considered inhumane to leave those people out on the street to die. Therefore, we heal them, and taxes foot the bill.
Computer malware is another issue entirely. First of all there is nothing inhumane about not cleaning someone's computer of malware when they can't afford it. They won't die from it.
Second of all computer viruses can be avoided by following good practices unlike health care related issues which eventually happen to everyone.
Finally, there is no need to pay a professional to fix the problem because anyone can simply reformat their machine or buy a new one if they are too lazy.
Finally x2, it is not a service that benefits everyone. Namely those people who follow good practices and don't ever get viruses, or are willing to spend the few hours to reformat when it does happen, shouldn't be forced to pay for those people who are too lazy to insert CD and click reinstall.
So really, there is no need for a forced tax for malware cleanup...worst idea ever,and I think it is unconstitutional to ask taxpayers to pay for someone else's laziness and incompetence.
Rather than taxing everyone before the fact it would make more sense to have ISPs tax the owners of infected computers. The government can develop a Snort-like product and mandate that ISPs use it. Any users that generate more than X number of alerts in Y period of time get charged. There would need to be some verification and appeal processes to weed out false positives.
If such an implementation is too expensive for a single ISP, move it up the chain. Monitor the peering points. Allow ISPs to tax each other on a quarterly basis. The ISPs that get taxed can figure out a way to pass on the costs to their customers.
Personally I'm against the whole idea. A tax requires some sort of monitoring. I don't like the idea of being monitored. If nothing else it adds latency and degrades the connection.
Telling politicians they could solve a problem with a tax is like telling a guy with a hammer "Say, that sure looks like a nail over there"
Is it just me, or does it seem rather arrogant and ironic that the OS and browser creator behind 99% of the worlds infected hosts is suggesting a tax to help rid the world of...infected hosts?
Nothing like a little "hey, look over here!" to get eyes and ears off root cause analysis.
God forbid we ask THAT company to simply make a more secure product. What the fuck was I thinking...
Most massive attacks happen after the problem has been patched because a patch is a notice to the bad guys something was wrong, and then they can backsolve for what changed, and from that learn what the whole was.
Sure, somebody could attack you with an unrevealed risk but that's a whole lot less likely. And if there is a massive 0-day flaw exploit, you can be sure Microsoft will get on that case quickly.
Unless the tax is used to remove Windows and replace it with Linux there is no way I'd ever accept something like that.
At which things stop being offensive and start being worthy of a Monty Python sketch.
This is like taxing my Honda to pay for the Toyota recall.
It's patently ridiculous; but in this rent-seeking based corpocracy, it doesn't surprise me that they'd try it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The company who is nearly single handedly the reason why there is an anti-virus industry wants a tax to pay for malware removal? F#$% off.
We should fine MS $1000 for every infection on systems running their software. IE and Outlook exploits could probably pay off the US national debt in 10 years.
...how about we tax Microsoft? How many of these security problems over the past 15 years were based on bad design decisions, and how many were inevitable?
And while we're at it, Adobe deserves a levy also.
Of course, if the majority of these security problems were essentially unforseeable by anybody, then why not encourage the ISPs to take the reins and do what needs to be done.
Oh, no, that doesn't make any sense...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"... if the charges were discounted ..."
Fsck that, no charge or even better, a credit.
All my systems are Linux, why should I have to pay even one cent because Micro$oft can't get their F'ing act together and J. Sixpack McPornbrowser is an idiot?
Actually the registry was a rather benign concept. It was originally designed to host OS settings in a convenient central location (with redundancy ofcource) to enable easier migration from PC to PC, easier group policy management, etc
Apps ofcource were too lazy to come up with their own damn 'INI files'-equivalent and abused the registry to store their own mess. System "tweaker" and other "cleaner" programs started to fuck with internal windows settings that Microsoft had no plans to expose to the end user causing even more problems. Thus its became this giant cluster-fuck that it is now, primarily because of backwards compatibility and previous strategic mistakes on the part of MS.
They should have kept the registry API hidden and not allowed apps to write their shit all over the place (ofcource 95 was a shitty OS and didn't have ACL like features, therefore forcing MS to have XP run as Admin by default to allow access to the entire object manager namespace for all programs)
This backlog of poor decisions finally caught up with them and they had to 'take a hit' (PR wise) finally with vista and the draconian UAC forcing app vendors to write apps w/o assuming admin privileges. Better late than never I'd say...
I thought having to buy Windows was the tax. After all it allows all the malware in the first place. Why not just make Microsoft liable for its security vulnerabilities to pay for this?
So since health care is a complete failure, they want to do the same thing with computers??? What non-sense.
Please do not use the word 'baddies'.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Here's a better idea--just as we tax gross polluters for the privilege to dump their industrial/agricultural byproduct, how about we tax Microsoft for their product's pollution of the internet? They bought market share by pushing insecure OSes to the masses, and so far have gotten others to absorb the displaced cost of computer ownage and botnets. Seriously--there are billions spent every year on cleaning and reinstalling infected windows PCs, and the botnets cause major economic damage to the attacked parties. Microsoft should pick up the cost of cleaning up their mess--we could even do a cap and trade where non-polluting OS installs can sell their "pollution" quota back to Microsoft.
Yeah, this'll happen.
Remain calm! All is well!
What a completely stupid idea. Let's write software that is bug ridden, make it too complex for the average home user, then charge those same people to keep it in tip-top shape. I guess, to play devil's advocate, there is a presedence in the auto-repair industry, home repair, etc.
Is this like if, say, the spring on my irony meter broke off and hit me in the eye and instead of suing the company that made the defective device, I sue the person who made the excessively ironic statement?
c.
Log in or piss off.
Why not tax Microsoft for writing such a poor, security-hole ridden operating system such as Windows? The vast majority of botnets and their like are Microsoft. Got Microsoft, get pwned.
What an idiot. Of course he works for Microsoft.
There's no reason for a Windows user not to be running anti-virus nowadays. Microsoft Security Essentials is so lightweight and unobtrusive that most users I install it for don't even know it's there. And it's free.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
Why should law-abiding citizens pay for the cost of dealing with criminals?
I can't believe how someone could manage to think that we should have to pay for this sort of thing. Instead of forcing us to cover the costs, the Government should:
1: SEIZE the criminal's house, car, boat, equity, stocks/securities, EVERYTHING, and put it up for sale, with 100% of the proceeds going towards the cost of their prosecution. Anything left over will go to public schools. Leave them with ONLY the clothes on their backs. If they have children, then they live with the next closest relative. If none exists, then foster care. If one parent is not involved, then they get the cheapest apartment in town and they have to find a way to pay for it (unless of course, they help lock up their spouse, then the Judge can be nice to the uninvolved persons in exchange for helping prosecutors).
2: MANDATORY HARD LABOR. PERIOD. Nothing says "Hmmmmm, maybe I shouldn't do this" like the prospect of literally spending the next 30 years pulling weeds or breaking rocks. Or, if you really wanted to drive the point home, make them dig holes, then fill them back in, then dig holes and fill them back in over and over.
4: HEAVY FINES. Make such fines additional to their reimbursement of prosecution costs, but in such a way that the fines cannot be used to repay the State, but are added on to prosecutorial and investigative costs.
3: PERMANENT SEIZURE of *all* electronic equipment and/or property that falls under their control. This would prevent suspects from transferring their property and money to people that are not involved as a means of keeping out of the Government's hands should they be convicted and/or large fines be levvied against them. This would remove needed capital that convicts (such as Alan Ralsky) can use to start their business back up again when they get out of prison, or to allow them to run the business from prison. If the equipment belongs to someone else, it cannot be permanently seized unless the actual owner is convicted as well.
Of course, all of these things would happen if the suspect(s) are convicted.
I am, for one, getting really tired of seeing criminals being issued "State Restitution Fines" (here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia) that amount to $10-$20 for committing crimes that have thousands of dollars in damages. So, the States eats the bill, getting $20 to pay for everything from the initial report of the crime to the time they are released from custody.
Leave the criminals with deciding if living on Easy Street is worth the risk of living on The Street.
MAKE CRIMINALS PAY FOR THEIR COSTS, NOT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
On Balmer and Gates' foreheads.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Tell you what, figure out a way to temporarily fund the government cybercrime squad using general funds. After 2 years on the job, ask the people who would pay if they support a tax to keep the cybercrime squad around.
If they want my vote, I'm going to need to see some impressive, worthwhile results.
You tricked me. I am still looking for the car in your analogy.
Reply to That ||
I'm still running Sygate Firewall... The only protection you will ever need!
You pay taxes, get no healthcare, and a private company makes obscene profits. Perfect 21st century US system: socialize the downside, capitalize the upside.
How about Microsoft bring their products up to Unix standard first? How about they do whatever it takes to upgrade the 75% of their userbase that is 10 years behind?
I fully agree with ISPs taking down the accounts of compromised machines, and calling the owner to let them know that they won't be allowed back online until they get the machine cleaned (which will likely cost money.)
I do not agree with the idea of a general "tax" to pay for the stupidity of people who insist on breaking the above common-sense rules. Why should I pay for someone else's ignorant behaviour?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Hell of a thing to ask, socialize the stupidity of a private company and of its legions of careless customers. How do I get in on a deal like that?
Bibo Ergo Sum.
If by "clean" they mean "Remove a Microsoft operating system and replace it with an actually secure operating system."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How about levying the tax against the manufacturer of the operating system affected.
The difference between Health Care and Computer Security is that I don't get to choose my body's operating system, and I have limited control over the hardware and software in my body (short of diet, cleanliness, and exercise, but not genetic issues, or living “malware” from other humans). If I have a living virus, I need to clean it, else spread it to others and then die. On the other hand, a computer virus is not a life or death problem, and some users chose to run systems that are more susceptible to viruses only because it is more convenient or the cost to learn is too high for them. In other words, the opportunity cost associated with being completely virus-free is higher than the value of the convenience of not having to be bothered worrying.
The free market is fully capable of controlling viruses in computers up to the extent that it feels that they need to be dealt with. Government-sponsored virus cleaning will attempt to completely eradicate viruses at all cost (or whatever cost it deems necessary). While we have the same issues with health care, I think more people can agree that the life of a human is a lot more worth the extra work than the life of a machine or network. A certain acceptable level of community virus activity is cheaper than attempting to completely eradicate viruses or the cost of a bureaucracy that attempts to control that activity.
Also tax people for not dusting out their computers, and smoking in front of their computers. I've had enough of opening people's computers to find every surface covered in a thick layer of dust, and once even some weird sticky stuff.
Maybe it should be structured like a smog test. You need to get checked to renew your right to run your machine down the Information Superhighway.
And there should be fines for illegal acts. Make the offenders pay, big-time. Bust any botnet gang members. Punish littering offenses like spamming or reckless driving for using a browser like IE.
Too many points and off to Driver's School for reeducation.
I like this idea. I have non-techy friends, their laptops are riddles with viruses and anti-virus software. To top it off, anti virus software providers are part of the problem. Their free trial popus are almost worse than a virus. So, the need exists. Any /. isn't going to have this problem but the rest of the world having this problem makes it everyone's problem.
Using public funds to keep the net virus free is a good approach. Some services you can't commercialize. If each person had the right to decide to not pay for the DMV, public education or the military then those services wouldn't exist. Keeping the net free does fall into this category. Everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it...forget where I read this drivel...but its interesting to see why or why not services are privatized.
Microsoft wants us to pay (even though we aren't infected) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with? And how on earth (as it will do nothing but funnel money) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem? And isn't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government?
Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this? Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing, while granting them higher profits? Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.
And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Hah! Its true. I am outclassed by slashdot! Money isn't everything....
zosxavius photography
$30 that can't be a cost transferred to consumers, in any way. You tack $30 on without the proviso that the costs can't be inferred to the consumer in any way and you invite Microsoft to raise the cost of Windows by $60.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Perfect! No legislation needed: just give ISPs the hint to be hard on their ignorant customers.
Mod parent up!
trying to create a bogeyman so they can convince the population that they need to be taxed so they can be protected from it.
The "collective stupid" is the most common. It's amazing how many people are willing to give up money and liberty to be protected from all those "stupid" people out there.
"Look at all those dumb people who get computers infected and pay companies to fix the problem for them! We need to tax them and let the government manage that industry."
And you can bet Microsoft won't be contracted out using that tax money to save all us "smart" people from the dumb people who get infected.
Also, pay no mind to the fact that the massive botnets are largely in countries not affected by taxes imposed by the US government.
Work Safe Porn
... is that Microsoft can actually get away saying this, and lawmakers don't see the falsehood, let alone immediatley laugh it off.
The viruses, malware and to a large extent the cyber criminal underworld is exclusively a problem of the Microsoft software ecosystem, and Microsoft's top brass suggests and internet tax to deal with affected computers.
(well not quite exclusively but good enough for all practical purposes)
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
That is a fine. It does not meet the definition of a tax.
I'm really going to enjoy tax assessors rifling through all my shit.
I think this is a great idea: increase corporate taxes on each hardware and software vendor every time their products are exploited. This pushes the costs of clean-ups onto those who've caused them, instead of those who have been violated by them. Eventually companies like Microsoft will be taxed out of existence.
Oh, he probably meant tax the citizens.
I propose a better solution:
Since Windows is obviously the problem for 99.999%+ of the instances of malware out there, why not tax Microsoft directly since they're the ones negligent in this manner (requiring antispyware and antivirus software that slows PCs to a crawl, and are largely effective against new trojans and viruses anyhow, since they're the ones who delivered the pathetically insecure piece of shit Windows. Why should users of Mac, Linux, and $OTHER operating system be penalized?
Better yet, why doesn't the FCC investigate this and slap some huge fines on Microsoft for creating this mess in the first place, and make the fine significant enough so that Microsoft doesn't consider it simply being the cost of doing business, but inspires them to finally cut the cord on backwards compatibility and move to a *NIX or VMS security model from the kernel all the way up to the UI? Even in Windows 7, security is a tacked-on afterthought due to Microsoft's never having considered cutting the cord on backwards compatibility with Win3x and Win9x - heck, even today many apps still in widespread use in businesses ranging from sole proprietorships to enterprise-size megacorps still require Administrative privileges.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'm already paying taxes to save peoples lives after they do stupid, dangerous shit. I'm not paying to fix their computers.
as long as Microsoft pays the tax. After all, they are the cause of those virus infections. About half of the worldwide Windows revenues ought to do it.
I didn't sell a defective product that was wide open to malicious exploitation by design, Microsoft did. People already paid for that OS and MS made plenty of bucks from that; Bill's billions is proof of that. Let Bill spend some of that to clean up this mess before that arrogant, self-aggrandizing lackey Scott Charney asks me to spend the first dime of my money.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
This idea is one of the biggest insults that Microsoft has pulled lately, Mr Charney must think he is a comedian, surely. I know that a clean internet is a 'good thing', but a Microsoft free internet would be a 'better thing'. We probably can't have that for a while so in the interim I suggest a reasonable tax on all Microsoft software to clean up 'my internet' until the problem has gone away. I use zero Microsoft products, but faulty Microsoft products do ruin 'my internet experience' and I truly loathe those responsible. So let us all ram home responsibility where it belongs, let Big Stevie know what we think of Little Scotty's idea.
I prefer Classic Slashdot.
How would you know somebody had a "good reputation" on Slashdot?
If you're too lazy to keep your lawn mowed, or to have someone else mow your lawn because you're not familiar with a mower, I certainly don't want to pay to have someone else do it for you.
Keeping your lawn clean is your responsibility, not that of the public. If your lawn becomes infested with virus carrying rodents because you can't be bothered, certainly a fine is appropriate. My lawn has managed to stay neat and free of infestation for years without taxpayer's help, nor would I ask it of them.
Oh wait, I meant to use a car analogy! Nah, a tax that keeps my car running might actually be a good thing..
Microsoft suggests having the government subsidize their shitty software.
After all, the root of the problem is in the massive holes in the system's design (as well as application software) ...
Also, let me guess - M$ would graciously offer certain service (for pay) to remove virus/worm/malware infections?
No thank you ...
Although MS is hugely profitable, MS prefers have the taxpayers pay MS bills.
For example:
Critics slam Microsoft bridge as waste of stimulus money
Critics of using stimulus money for the bridge say it would give the software giant a break on a pet project.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/index.html
Here's another example:
Microsoft To Get $100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty .484 percent. Under the new law, only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable. Ironically, after slashing Microsoft's tax burden, HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions' like those in Nevada -- except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice. The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina, home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires, and other areas around Microsoft's corporate campus."
"Despite a $2.8 billion deficit, Washington State's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings. Under current law, all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/15/1957205/Microsoft-To-Get-100M-Annual-Tax-Cut-and-Amnesty
And now, again, msft is asking the US taxpayer to pick up the bill for what should be msft's expense.
These botnets exist because of the bullshit product this VP is pumping into the market. Instead of fixing that, he wants to EXTERNALIZE the costs of his company's own defects!? It would be like Toyota suggesting we pay a tax to deal with all the damage from unintended acceleration and faulty break systems.
I use my Linux box for nearly everything. The only use I have for Windows (on a separate, offline desktop) is for testing. Yeah, I should have to pay an extra tax to cover ignorant users... Seems fair.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Yep, just like health care - there's a conflict of interest: Bill Gates / Microsoft created the problem they want to tax for. Had they written Windows properly we would not have this problem. May Gates burn in Heck.
Let's just get a secure OS based on the capability object model into the hands of the masses, so we can fix the problem at it's source!
Make it possible for users to decide what capabilities a program is allowed to have before its run... they will actually make good choices if they have good tools.
I am using time machine on a g4 mini mac (1.42 ghz CPU) and I haven't seen any taking of resources by backupd (time machine). It could be using idle cpu and I am sure it already watches filesystem activity while doing backup since if I am doing something with the hard disk, it really takes long time backing up.
On all my systems. I should be tax exempt. Period.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Right...if you want to run Windows without antivirus, you better just not connect to the Internet, and you'd best have auto-play turned off.
Sitting across the room from me is a very IT-savvy person who - just yesterday - browsed to a business-related website. Only to have Kaspersky pop up and notify her that the website had been hacked and wanted to download a trojan.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Exxon Corp., (NASDAQ: XOM) has proposed congress levy a tax to clean up the messes left by their ships every time one spills a couple million gallons of crude oil into a previously (more-or-less) unspoilt environment. Because... it's not like it was ANY fault of theirs, OH NO! NOT THEIR MESS. Why doesn't Misro$oft start taxing people for using their competitor's prod...ucts... oh yeah, they basically do. BTW, moderators: It's not "bashing" if they deserve it. Aaaand... they so do.
Since we all are already paying the Microsoft OEM tax; available on every system you can buy (tm) .. as if it isn't enough.
Best marketing stunt available since long ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Local services funded by community taxes. How to fund those services is up to each community. Normally, schools and such are funded by property taxes.
Limited government also means pushing services and taxes down to the lowest possible level - where the voter has more of a voice in how tax money is raised and spent.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
["Slow Down Cowboy", my left one...]
Athy, athier, athiest.
So if you run windows update, then most of the systems will not be destroyed by the next attack?
But not all machines have the same value. So how do you measure the effectiveness of this strategy?
You are assuming that the current situation is acceptable because the hacks have not be overwhelmingly destructive. But they still could be costing us massively, but in hidden ways.
For instance a scientists computer is infected and data is lost. Perhaps he was about to figure out something really important with that data; but now he can't.
The problem is we are measuring the cost of this strategy by a wholly unreliable tool: The media.
The truth is that these defects are responsible for lost opportunities that are very difficult to measure in current time, but are massive only in retrospect.
How about fining people that have malware/viruses on their computer and spread it to others? This is easy enough to track via ISP and IP addresses. How about fining companies that create these vulnerabilities in the first place that detriment all of us? How about fining companies that install rootkits and other undesirable DRM that breaks computer functionality in the name of "Security"? Toyota gets a penalty for unsafe accelerators, MS should get a penalty for insecure web browsers and OSes.