What I found really interesting about the article was the number of ways the author suggested that web sites (and I presuming html-mail) could have the computer that is accessing them register in the tracker. It scares me to think of what could happen if that was incorporated into the next set of whatever you call the self-propogating VB-script-based spam.
And because everyone else has an alternative analogy, this seems most like if a person was caught burglerizing a house, and then claimed you were an accomplice. Reason to investigate further, but not enough to declare even a proponderence of the evidence (the standard in copyright cases) suggests you are guilty.
The exploit operates through the microphone, so that's not the exploit. Maybe the fact that there was an 'omission' (from your criteria of an exploit) that the speech recogntion software doesn't have any speaker identification, but I doubt that was accidentally left out. It probably wasn't in the spec.
Slashdot Mirror
And because everyone else has an alternative analogy, this seems most like if a person was caught burglerizing a house, and then claimed you were an accomplice. Reason to investigate further, but not enough to declare even a proponderence of the evidence (the standard in copyright cases) suggests you are guilty.
The exploit operates through the microphone, so that's not the exploit. Maybe the fact that there was an 'omission' (from your criteria of an exploit) that the speech recogntion software doesn't have any speaker identification, but I doubt that was accidentally left out. It probably wasn't in the spec.