I think US goes too far. First, US allows a monopolist to build a troyan-friendly operating system. Then it builds a non-secure internet. Then it allows anyone to track anyone on internet. And then US wants to police the whole damn thing. I think the rest of the world should really be worried about their security and not let one state alone police anything beyond its borders.
Last time I attended copyright law seminar I heard: "the one who pays for the work gets the copyright if there's no overruling contract". So it all depends on the contract and whether the work has been paid.
I agree. The cyberspace is cruel, and there is no intrinsic natural law inside.
In a lawless environment (or in an environmen where law is not enforcable) everyone is responsible for his own security on the internet? If you are not secured, you cannot complain about being attacked.
Therefore, operating system should provide security as one of the basic functions.
While the US government let micro$oft be a monopoly for far too long they created a beast against their interest: a totally non-secure system running on 90% of computers.
Congratulations! It's now time to spend Bill's extra profit on remedying the situation.
The users are not dumb, they care about their jobs and not about intrinsics of computers. Most users don't even know what running code means, they are just "looking at the mail and clicking around" in their opinion. The real issue is a windows architecture issue. Windows should PROTECT the users from such things happening. Specifically, it should run ANY non-trusted code in a secure sandbox, where it couldn't do anything that might potentially hurt the user. Anything that comes from internet should be treated as highest security risk if it doesn't come with some kind of veryfiable certificate and a licence which makes the author liable for some kinds of damages. As it is now, even windows should be run in such a sandbox.
Slashdot Mirror
I think US goes too far. First, US allows a monopolist to build a troyan-friendly operating system. Then it builds a non-secure internet. Then it allows anyone to track anyone on internet. And then US wants to police the whole damn thing. I think the rest of the world should really be worried about their security and not let one state alone police anything beyond its borders.
Last time I attended copyright law seminar I heard: "the one who pays for the work gets the copyright if there's no overruling contract". So it all depends on the contract and whether the work has been paid.
In a lawless environment (or in an environmen where law is not enforcable) everyone is responsible for his own security on the internet? If you are not secured, you cannot complain about being attacked.
Therefore, operating system should provide security as one of the basic functions.
While the US government let micro$oft be a monopoly for far too long they created a beast against their interest: a totally non-secure system running on 90% of computers.
Congratulations! It's now time to spend Bill's extra profit on remedying the situation.
The users are not dumb, they care about their jobs and not about intrinsics of computers. Most users don't even know what running code means, they are just "looking at the mail and clicking around" in their opinion. The real issue is a windows architecture issue. Windows should PROTECT the users from such things happening. Specifically, it should run ANY non-trusted code in a secure sandbox, where it couldn't do anything that might potentially hurt the user. Anything that comes from internet should be treated as highest security risk if it doesn't come with some kind of veryfiable certificate and a licence which makes the author liable for some kinds of damages. As it is now, even windows should be run in such a sandbox.