Kathy Forer on sat 29 jan 05
On Jan 29, 2005, at 7:56 PM, William Melstrom wrote:
> There was a blurb regarding this case on the front page of the Austin,
> Texas
> daily paper business section. Said the kid was sentenced to 18 months
> in
> prison and 10 months (?) community service. "Parson's version of
> Blaster
> crippled more than 48,000 computers." There was a picture of the kid
> --
> although just a head shot, you could see that he was obese.
A friend of mine would like to see Bill Gates put in jail and is
offended that this kid had to "apologize" and will pay restitution,
probably $1.2 million to Microsoft which he feels is an organization
blatantly guilty of releasing and pushing buggy, insecure software.
If we were to go back to the 70s or 80s, the analogy would be putting
drug abusers in jail while allowing the big pushers, importers and
money launderers to get away, even apologizing to them.
According to my friend, this kid was having fun with the holes in the
software, exploiting them not so much for malice but for the thrill,
because he could. He blames Microsoft for refusing to own up to their
problems thereby encouraging underhanded exploits, that they are
culpable for negligence. This was an old security issue but a new worm
taking advantage of those machines that hadn't been patched using
Microsoft's very ineffectual and problematic patching system. Some
people call for Microsoft to educate the public and even have a
"television campaign with 30 second commercials showing people how to
run Windows Update" to compensate for the flaws in the Windows OS.
Certainly they should fix them if they can get at them, or cover them
up with a firewall or other measures if they can't.
Although writing viruses can appropriately be considered a "fool's
game," the argument is apparently mute that because vulnerabilities are
always free to be exploited, only codes of ethics and rules of
civilization stand between us and utter chaos. It is claimed that the
real abuser of our trust is the monoculture software company and the
broadband networks that neglect their imperative to provide safe and
secure network computing.
The whole debate simply boils down to a
cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost of
downtime due to an undesired attack vs the
cost of ensuring all stays up and running?
What is the cost of having security holes
and leaking internal information vs the cost
of plugging them up?
The 6-foot-4-inch, 320-pound Parson, known
online as "teekid," was the first person
arrested in connection with the Blaster
attacks.
Kathy Forer
mel jacobson on sat 29 jan 05
i sent a spam to the list.
it was about bamboo. i thought some of you
might be interested in the site...who knows?
the kid from our school was sentenced to 12 months in
prison yesterday. three years of no computer use, and
100 hours of community service helping kids not do
fraud. the `fine` amount will come later.
the judge reamed the parents a new butt. she said the
parents were totally to blame, allowing a kid to sit in the
basement for months on end with five computers. no one
ever checked on him. his mental social capacity was like
a 12 year old. his life was centered on his computer society.
he had no real friends. he is 6'5" about 270 lbs. the parents
did not attend the final hearing in seattle. that tells you something.
jerks of the worst order.
as i said the other day. recycling clay is a time/management
decision. what is good for richard is not good for another potter.
but, no one can tell another potter how to run their business.
(i don't think that happened here at all...but folks do get very
serious about re/cycle issues...sorta religious.)
i have said before, i am sure that 80 percent of the clay that is
sold to schools goes into land fill. i have had many elementary
teachers tell me...`oh, the boxed clay got a bit hard, we threw
it out`. we had one school in hopkins that threw out about
60 boxes of clay...all new, because it was too firm. folks just
don't know what to do with it.
i got 50 boxes of firm stoneware this fall. gal did not have a pugmill,
had hand problems and went into the soap business. it was just
at the end of my drive with a note. `make good pots with this clay.`
at least half of it was marked 6/10/90. so it is aged.
i just drop it into my pug mill with scrap. add water.
it is just clay.
short clay is for platters. who cares? a rib makes the pot.
forced out and flat. you never lift a wall. aged clay is for teapots
and tall things.
ivor/if a potter is making 50 big platters with foot rings, there
is a great deal of trimmings. add broken pots, slurry, and general
mess, it really mounts up fast. 7 day week...for a full time potter.
and, david hendley. when are you re/cycling? i heard by the grapevine
that you have been in bed reading since christmas. lounging around
while karen slaves at her teaching. i have spys...long lenses.
your bed has a big dent. smug texan telling me i am dogmatic.
mel
mel jacobson/minnetonka/minnesota/usa
http://www.pclink.com/melpots
http://www.rid-a-tick.com
wjskw@BELLSOUTH.NET on sun 30 jan 05
This is getting increasingly offtopic, but in for a penny, in for a
pound I guess.
"It is claimed that the
real abuser of our trust is the monoculture software company and the
broadband networks that neglect their imperative to provide safe and
secure network computing."
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment here, I have to argue with
that statement.
Yes, we all know the software is buggy. So riddled with holes and
security flaws that it resembles more Swiss cheese than software.
We accept that. I don't know why we allow it to continue, but there
you have it.
Used the way it SHOULD be, Windows works reasonably well. Some of
the other versions did not, and we all know that. And, under demand
from the marketplace, M$ came out with newer, better versions, as
any manufacturer would.
Exploiting the holes in the software for whatever reason, is wrong,
and is not done in a civilized society (which we are decidedly NOT.)
Given a civilized society, it would not even occur to most of the
population that a hole or security flaw SHOULD be exploited.
As an analogy, could one then "claim that the real abuser of our
trust is the monoculture auto manufacturer and the federal state and
city Public Works Departments that neglect their imperative to
provide safe and secure travel?" Nonsense.
We all know the risks inherent to driving, we all accept that autos,
being mechanical devices, occasionally have "problems" and the
manufacturers (usually) respond when these problems or deficiencies
are brought to their attention...sometimes under force of law.
It doesn't mean we go breaking into cars because we can, or hang
cement cinderblock from overpasses to smash into cars travelling
below because the PWD didn't think to make sure we couldn't, and
install higher railings on bridges. It doesn't mean that we hack
into the Onstar system, and open everyone's car door that owns a GM
vehicle so equipped. Again, none of this is done in a civilized
society.
The problem is that we have become TOO tolerant of these miscreants,
in the name of "personal freedoms".
Even in a liberal and free democracy, there are rules set for the
good of society as a whole. These rules are not often codified, or
set down in writing. It's just common knowledge, common courtesy.
In the US, we have lived with those "rules" for over 200 years. In
other parts of the planet, even longer. (Rules like, "you don't just
go into the street and start murdering people")
The penalties for failure to follow the rules, written or unwritten
should be more severe for those that affect hundreds or thousands of
people, than for those that affect one or two (such as running a red
light, no accident.)
That boy, and his parents should both be held accountable. Him, for
his actions. His parents, for failing to raise a contributing,
accountable member of society. The penalties for either should be
severe. To my way of thinking, he got off lightly, his parents got
off free.
My son was raised with computers, so were his friends. He had three
in his room by the time he entered high school, one that he built
himself from scrap parts. Computers were a tool to aid him in his
studies, a tool to add to his skill as an artist, to encourage his
dexterity and mental acuity playing games. He never hacked anything
or even tried, nor did his friends.
Because their parent(s) paid attention, and did their job.
Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Wayne Seidl
Kathy Forer on sun 30 jan 05
On Jan 30, 2005, at 9:29 AM, wjskw@BELLSOUTH.NET wrote:
> The problem is that we have become TOO tolerant of these miscreants,
> in the name of "personal freedoms".
>
> [...]
>
> That boy, and his parents should both be held accountable. Him, for
> his actions. His parents, for failing to raise a contributing,
> accountable member of society. The penalties for either should be
> severe. To my way of thinking, he got off lightly, his parents got
> off free.
I would agree that the kid and his parents should be held accountable,
but where is the outrage against Microsoft? They should also be held
accountable. It's as though Detroit decided against sending out a
recall on a vehicle which could unpredictably lose control. They didn't
even make it a voluntary recall, they merely posted a work-around, or
patch, that would prevent that behavior on that particular car.
I'm on this fence about this. Your argument for personal responsibility
is strong, it just needs to be applied to everyone involved. Too often
we overlook the flaws in large institutions as being some kind of
overwhelming, unquestionable structural authority. There's nothing
inherent in computers or in society that says an operating system is
going to be so buggy that people will exploit it for fun or personal
gain. Microsoft has allowed us to think theirs is the standard, it's
not, it's just once instance writ large. We need laws against spam,
corporate firewalls and broadband policies against network
exploitation. And penalties for people and institutions that propagate
back-door technology.
As a friend suggested, why couldn't Microsoft take advantage of these
worm kids? Have contests for finding holes in their software, enlist
them rather than alienate them. It's not as though they're making a
product as best they can, MS is known to release buggy software and
build on it. They are remarkably unresponsive to their users. That's
not necessary. Their long-delayed Longhorn project is an attempt to
rewrite Windows but it depends far too much on previous versions of
their software, the analogy being that it's like trying to add a
seventh story to a six story building. Most of the energy is devoted to
shoring up the first six stories. Build it right in the first place.
Are you sure, by the way, that your son never hacked anything? If he
was able to build a computer by himself, he was probably able to hack
as well. The difference being that he recognized what was wrong and
didn't take unfair advantage, didn't become a "cracker."
I find it very objectionable that hackers have been lumped together
with spammers. Hackers have a long and illustrious history,
contributing more to what is now our internet than any institution.
Open Source is the basis for Linux and practically all of the world
wide web. Thank you, Tim Berners-Lee. Imagine if he had copywritten
HTML back in release 1.0. We'd be on 1.5 now, rather than 4.2 and XML.
Etc. Hacking good, spam bad. But Microsoft would have us believe they
are one and the same and doing nothing to prevent either allows them to
be lumped together, thus in the newspapers and People magazine Linux is
eventually equated with spam which couldn't be further from the truth.
But to try to bring this back to clay, there's an excellent essay
originally written in 1997 by Eric S. Raymond called The Cathedral and
the Bazaar http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/index.html
(click on "Here's the XHTML" or on your preferred language under the
title of the book a bit down from the top). It may be a stretch, but it
sounds like Mashiko, or any group of potters working with a community
kiln. Or Clayart, where individual contributions generate discussion,
spreading knowledge and support.
Okay, now where was that clay?
Kathy Forer
William Melstrom on sun 30 jan 05
> the kid from our school was sentenced to 12 months in
> prison yesterday. three years of no computer use, and
> 100 hours of community service helping kids not do
> fraud. the `fine` amount will come later.
There was a blurb regarding this case on the front page of the Austin, Texas
daily paper business section. Said the kid was sentenced to 18 months in
prison and 10 months (?) community service. "Parson's version of Blaster
crippled more than 48,000 computers." There was a picture of the kid --
although just a head shot, you could see that he was obese.
William Melstrom
Tom Sawyer on tue 1 feb 05
Kathy,
You said " A friend of mine would like to see Bill Gates put in jail and is
offended that this kid had to "apologize" and will pay restitution,
probably $1.2 million to Microsoft which he feels is an organization
blatantly guilty of releasing and pushing buggy, insecure software."
NUTS. The kid is guilty of vandalism. The fact that someone can place a
virus in the software doesn't make Gates guilty anymore than a car
manufacturer because someone drives too fast. Where is it written that
software must be 100% perfect before it is sold but this rule doesn't apply
to other things. For that matter is our pottery 100% perfect and might it be
abused in some nutty manner. How does Gates profit when a virus attacks a
microsoft product? As far as I know Microsoft doesn't sell antivirus
software. Gates and Microsoft may not be perfect and God knows there is
probably much to criticize but I don't believe persons writing virus
programs and disseminating them world wide are his fault.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
k.com.
Carol Ross on wed 2 feb 05
I wasn't going to say anything, but since this thread popped up
again... The idea presented earlier that the kid is fat, therefore he
obviously spends too much time in front of the computer and because
he's a fat kid with a computer, he writes viruses - well, that's...
NUTS, to borrow a word. I don't want to get in here too deep, but
maybe the kid eats to be in control of something... that's one of the
reasons that kids have eating disorders... they feel controlled by
everyone/thing around them, so they take control of their bodies. it's
not a conscious decision (take it from a former fat kid), it just seems
to work, food = control AND comfort. Maybe it's about getting
attention - sometimes all kids want is attention and they're not always
picky about whether it's positive or negative...
Which leads me to wonder why a kid would write a computer virus in the
first place? I have to wonder if this kid was trying to bring about
the collapse of civilization as we know it? Was he gleefully
attempting the destruction of the world's computerized banking systems,
Wall Street and Microsoft? Was he jubilant knowing that he would make
average, innocent people lose thousands of dollars (millions?).
Or... maybe he thought it was a neat idea and he would get lots of
attention for doing it.
When my daughter was a teenager, one of her teachers suggested that we
ask what she was THINKING about when she did something particularly
nuts - not WHY did she do it... because she probably didn't know why.
I'm just trying to present another possibility - I don't know this kid
or his parents. I think he behaved like a kid who hasn't the maturity
to think through to the logical conclusion of this actions.
Sorry Mel - I'd be furious, too, if it were my computer. But I don't
think this kid is evil or a bad seed...
Carol R.
One of several Clayart Carols...
http://homepage.mac.com/portfolio.carolross/Menu4.html
On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> Kathy,
> You said " A friend of mine would like to see Bill Gates put in jail
> and is
> offended that this kid had to "apologize" and will pay restitution,
> probably $1.2 million to Microsoft which he feels is an organization
> blatantly guilty of releasing and pushing buggy, insecure software."
>
> NUTS. The kid is guilty of vandalism. The fact that someone can place a
> virus in the software doesn't make Gates guilty anymore than a car
> manufacturer because someone drives too fast. Where is it written that
> software must be 100% perfect before it is sold but this rule doesn't
> apply
> to other things. For that matter is our pottery 100% perfect and might
> it be
> abused in some nutty manner. How does Gates profit when a virus
> attacks a
> microsoft product? As far as I know Microsoft doesn't sell antivirus
> software. Gates and Microsoft may not be perfect and God knows there is
> probably much to criticize but I don't believe persons writing virus
> programs and disseminating them world wide are his fault.
>
> Tom Sawyer
> tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
>
> k.com.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
Kathi LeSueur on wed 2 feb 05
Tom Sawyer wrote:
>Kathy,
>You said " A friend of mine would like to see Bill Gates put in jail and is
>offended that this kid had to "apologize" and will pay restitution,
>probably $1.2 million to Microsoft which he feels is an organization
>blatantly guilty of releasing and pushing buggy, insecure software."
>
>NUTS. The kid is guilty of vandalism.>>>>>
>
I totally agree with Tom on this. I hated the ad that said "don't help a
good kid go bad, lock your car".
I shouldn't have to lock my car, my house, or protect anything else from
the vandalism or theft by others. Just be cause you can, doesn't mean
you should. If I have to lock my car the kid isn't good to begin with.
Kathi
Maurice Weitman on thu 3 feb 05
Hello, Tom,
At 4:43 PM -0500 on 2/1/05, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>The kid is guilty of vandalism.
You bet, and he should be punished.
>[...] How does Gates profit when a virus attacks a
>microsoft product?
First of all, the virus doesn't attack a Microsoft product; it
exploits security weaknesses in Microsoft products.
>[...] but I don't believe persons writing virus
>programs and disseminating them world wide are his fault.
I'm not alone in thinking that Mr. Gates and Microsoft have too often
rushed their products (notably their Windows operating systems) to
market long before they were ready for prime time. This practice led
to Microsoft, and most significantly, Mr. Gates, earning much more
money than if they had released their products after they could
benefit from proper design (including absence of numerous security
holes) and sufficient testing.
I've worked with computers since 1961 and have spent too much time
fixing and protecting Windows systems
to have anything but disdain for the poor quality of Windows OSes and
application programs, and for Microsoft's lack of concern for its
customers' safety and inconvenience.
As I said before, I believe that a virus/worm author and promulgator
should be aggressively found and punished. The same with spammers.
Whether they make money from their deeds or not isn't the point.
And just as CEOs and corporate board members can be held liable for
their company's lack of financial integrity, it would be a good thing
if corporate leaders would be held accountable for their company's
irresponsible behavior. I'm not saying that MS or BG are that
irresponsible, but close. They are also a functional monopoly.
Regards,
Maurice
Tom Sawyer on thu 3 feb 05
Maurice,
I politely disagree. Don't want to beat a dead horse but if I didn't like
Microsoft products so well, I wouldn't buy them and I might still be working
on MS Office Version 1. If I object to a movie, I don't buy it or watch it.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
Kathy Forer on thu 3 feb 05
On Feb 1, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> Gates and Microsoft may not be perfect and God knows there is
> probably much to criticize but I don't believe persons writing virus
> programs and disseminating them world wide are his fault.
That's actually not really true. Microsoft is definitely guilty, if not
of malpractice then of negligence.
Doctors aren't realistically expected to be omnipotent but they are
expected to live up to the generally accepted standards of their
profession. Otherwise they will be accused of a "serious breach of a
public duty." What is the point of defending an irresponsible corporate
giant? Although the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation is generally forward thinking and extraordinarily generous,
Microsoft, the company Mr. Gates founded, should be liable for its
disdain for social conscience..
There is no excuse for a computer operating system that allows so many
people to be infected and expend hours of time and anxiety combatting
viruses and popups, adware and worms. I've seen very few Windows
computer that didn't have at least some of these, many of them with so
many they were disabled as a result. There is no excuse. A responsible
software company would have closed the obvious holes and created a
comprehensive consumer education campaign. It's almost as if Microsoft
could care less.
Their patches and "innovative" solutions are never complete. When they
add a so-called "firewall" to a new release, we can be sure it's the M$
rendition of a firewall, something like elevator music, ersatz and
ineffective, though it may resemble the real thing in appearance, SP2
for XP is a "substandard, partial implementation of a firewall, and
it's under program control at that. (ie: practically worthless) That's
after a small fortune was spent doing the best they (Microsoft) could
come up with."
According to one study described in "Anti-adware misses most malware,"
by Brian Livingston http://windowssecrets.com/050127/#story1 "80% of
home PCs in the U.S. are infected with adware and spyware." As related
by one of the IT consultants on an Internet tech/creative list: "We
used to joke that Microsoft Windows was a full-employment program for
consultants. It stopped being funny a long time ago though."
One of the recommendations I have passed on is
> Windows *can* be relatively secure. Just:
> 1) Ditch IE.
> Remove it from the desktop.
> Put a Windows Update icon there instead.
> Set IE to only allow Windows Update and Office Update in the
> security settings.
> 2) Install Firefox
> 3) Ditch Outlook and Outlook Express. Install Thunderbird for email.
In other words, if Windows were an automobile, you'd be advised to
"Replace the transmission and tires and make sure to remember that the
left turning signal is for a right turn and the brakes are unreliable.
Oh, and remove the rear seats and wear a gas mask if you want to be
really safe." If it were a pot, you wouldn't be able to use it for food
and it would leak if you used it as a vase instead. It would probably
crumble after four years. Windows 2K, as contrasted with W98 or XP, is
a slightly less dodgy OS, as it generally requires an administrator
install, but it is marketed primarily to enterprises, not home users.
Microsoft is requiring that its users, its customers, be proactive.
That would be alright, fine even exemplary, if they enabled them with
tools to help themselves. Instead, they are themselves regressive and
reactive, rarely anticipating the various attacks and opportunistic
exploits which are apparent to anyone with any computer/network
sophistication.
Some people are simply lucky if they haven't had their Windows
computers compromised in some way.
A computer colleague wrote, in response to the statement that on
UNIX-based machines (ie. Linux or OSX), it is far more difficult to
"alter system or application software or settings" because those OSes
require "root access" or administrative control to make such changes
and while it's still possible to infect such a machine, it is
considerably more difficult:
"It's amazing how far standards have fallen in the
IT industry in the last 15 years, and how no one
cares about the real danger it's putting us all
in. Permanently defective operating systems, lack
of competent practitioners, and lack maintenance
will be the end of us."
It's far too easy for this to generate into a flame war, but there are
very few Windows administrators and consultants left who will claim the
software they work with is safe or secure in a networked environment.
Basically, if it's on the Internet, it should be well-protected. That
should be built-in. Not an afterthought! Would you take a golf cart out
on the highway? Even a really fast one. Especially an interstate with
hummers, SUVs and trucks. No way. But you're doing the same thing when
you're forced to add reinforced side panels and heavy duty tires to
your somewhat nifty cart. It's corporate negligence, and some, like my
friend, consider it criminal.
Should a doctor operate blindfolded on a dirty table without having
washed her hands or instruments? For Microsoft to sell software that
allows known vulnerabilities to proliferate is a breach of the public
trust. I'm getting redundant. It's sooo unnecessary that people go
through what they do.
Kathy
Kathy Forer on thu 3 feb 05
On Feb 2, 2005, at 7:12 PM, Kathi LeSueur wrote:
> I shouldn't have to lock my car, my house, or protect anything else
> from
> the vandalism or theft by others. Just be cause you can, doesn't mean
> you should. If I have to lock my car the kid isn't good to begin with.
That's unrealistic. When you're on a worldwide interconnected system of
networks, your computer appears just as one from a networked nuclear
facility or large corporation might, give or take some details. It's
seen only as an IP address, unless differentiated by type. If one of
these script-kiddies, or worse, a really malicious cracker makes a
virus or worm, you are as vulnerable as the corporation or power
company. To suggest that a nuclear facility or bank leave its door
unlocked and trust the goodness of humanity is wishful thinking.
The age old solution to vulnerability and trust has been the creation
of communities, not gated havens, but societies where people trust each
other but also provide surveillance and a network of support and
prevention. The corollary of a community on the Internet is an ISP or
internet service provider, the correspondence with citizens is the
computer, more specifically the operating system.
Would you run a 60 amp kiln if you don't have enough amperage? Your
power utility would be negligent if they said you'd fine. It happens,
but very few people make such "user error" because we are educated to
be responsible about electricity. The same thing should go for
networked computing. By propagating insecure sytems, Microsoft has
contributed more to our need for enhanced security than any other
factor.
The kid who takes advantage of such might still be "no good" or a
misguided rebel, but the adults in his community need to reinforce safe
computing, not deny it. The analogy is not open doors but houses
without roofs or doors. The atmosphere is made conducive to subversive
antisocial behavior.
Maybe I'm just really prejudiced. As a Macintosh consultant, the
problems I deal with are generally of the ilk of simple user learning
curve stumbles or dumb things like forgotten passwords or misplaced
files. If there's a real persistent problem, it's something like the a
user not knowing how to configure an application appropriately or
someone having problems connecting peripherals, often because of
impatience. Why am I able to sync a client's Treo when the client can't
do it himself? I work slow if necessary. Fast if that works better.
Left to right, top to bottom, work small, work smart. Indulge leaps of
intuition, but respond with reason. A computer shouldn't be
intimidating or a cause of constant problems, it's simply a tool.
Kathy
Kathi LeSueur on fri 4 feb 05
Kathy Forer wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2005, at 7:12 PM, Kathi LeSueur wrote:
>
>> I shouldn't have to lock my car, my house, or protect anything else
>> from
>> the vandalism or theft by others. Just be cause you can, doesn't mean
>> you should. If I have to lock my car the kid isn't good to begin with.
>
>
> That's unrealistic. When you're on a worldwide interconnected system of
> networks, your computer appears just as one from a networked nuclear
> facility or large corporation might, give or take some details.....
>
> The kid who takes advantage of such might still be "no good" or a
> misguided rebel, but the adults in his community need to reinforce safe
> computing, not deny it. The analogy is not open doors but houses
> without roofs or doors. The atmosphere is made conducive to subversive
> antisocial behavior.......
>
>
I taught delinquents for six years, and everyone of them tried to tell
me "it wasn't my fault I got into trouble. If they hadn't left their
'doors unlocked, keys in the car, money accessible'" or some other
excuse. Yes, Microsoft is negligent. That's why I have a Mac. (It's
also a lot better system to use). But that doesn't mean some kid or
adult has the right to make life miserable and expensive just so that
he can "have some fun". He was bored. I believe in responsible behavior
by everyone. I believe that just because someone is vulnerable it isn't
a license to take advantage of him. And, to excuse someone's behavior
because, afterall, if you hadn't placed the temptation he wouldn't have
done it is just wrong. Unless that person is a two year old.
Kathi
Earl Brunner on fri 4 feb 05
The moral principle of what Kathi is saying is never-the-less true. You shouldn't have to. The reality is something different, as you Kathy say. I personally think that if you are a newbie to computers, you shouldn't connect your self to the internet unless you have a GOOD understanding of the risks, have taken maximum protective measures, and know better than to open ANYTHING that comes to you unsolicited. It's akin to taking an unsuspecting country bumpkin and dropping them into a slum or red light district in a larger city (or any other societal ill) - EASY prey. But it's worse then that. On the internet, with the click of a mouse, you bring the slum, red light district and any other negative conotation that you might chose right into your house. The garbage is coming looking for you, instead of you the garbage.
Because of that internet climate, Microsoft (an any other vendor) should take the responsibility of making their software as idiot proof and safe as they can. Not everyone who buys a computer is a computer tech, and even techs get burned.
Kathy Forer wrote:
On Feb 2, 2005, at 7:12 PM, Kathi LeSueur wrote:
> I shouldn't have to lock my car, my house, or protect anything else
> from
> the vandalism or theft by others. Just be cause you can, doesn't mean
> you should. If I have to lock my car the kid isn't good to begin with.
That's unrealistic. When you're on a worldwide interconnected system of
networks, your computer appears just as one from a networked nuclear
facility or large corporation might, give or take some details.
Earl Brunner
e-mail: brunv53@yahoo.com
John Hesselberth on fri 4 feb 05
It seems to me that it is up to society (and its law enforcement arm)
to punish the criminals that write viruses and cause such havoc. And
that is slowly beginning to happen--though not nearly fast enough to
satisfy me.
It is up to us as consumers to punish Microsoft when they write crappy
software by voting with our wallets. I don't think there is any
question that there are at least 2 superior alternatives. Yet we
consumers continue to tolerate the situation. We probably get what we
deserve when we continue to buy products that are known to be so
vulnerable and defective. We wouldn't buy more of a clay body that
gives us trouble--why do we so with computers and their software?
Regards,
John
Kathy Forer on fri 4 feb 05
On Feb 4, 2005, at 9:06 AM, Kathi LeSueur wrote:
> I taught delinquents for six years, and everyone of them tried to tell
> me "it wasn't my fault I got into trouble. If they hadn't left their
> 'doors unlocked, keys in the car, money accessible'" or some other
> excuse. Yes, Microsoft is negligent. That's why I have a Mac. (It's
> also a lot better system to use). But that doesn't mean some kid or
> adult has the right to make life miserable and expensive just so that
> he can "have some fun". He was bored. I believe in responsible behavior
> by everyone. I believe that just because someone is vulnerable it isn't
> a license to take advantage of him. And, to excuse someone's behavior
> because, afterall, if you hadn't placed the temptation he wouldn't have
> done it is just wrong. Unless that person is a two year old.
I'm not excusing this kids behavior, I'm just pointing to the adults
and authorities who should act responsibly and set a good example.
It's actually quite a challenge to do some of the hacker/cracker
things. It takes a certain deviousness and lack of consciousness to
implement a worm or virus, but doing it can be very consuming. There's
a kind of obsession that happens with computer geeks where they forget
everything else and their values become topsy turvy. It helps to be in
a healthy environment. The open source movement is one such
environment. Former juvey wormkids can contribute with the same
compulsive preoccupation but be richly rewarded with community and
construction.
Microsoft is responsible for a tainted environment. Vandalism usually
builds on itself. If a house has one broken window and it's repaired,
it will probably not happen again. But a house that's allowed to
deteriorate, either through incompetent management or an absentee
landlord, to the point of multiple broken windows, will eventually lose
doors, rails and roofs and end up with squatters or the wrecking ball.
Sometimes a neighborhood can turn around and the squatters will
rehabilitate the vacant house. Sometimes it will just become an endemic
neighborhood problem, a crack den. If a major, wealthy institution
allows itself to degenerate, it will affect all around it.
It's a networked world. We can't think of this kid in isolation alone
in his house with his parents. He was a visible presence, apparently,
among these script kiddies, just as the delinquents you worked with had
their delinquent friends.
The only real difference between "some" of the worm writers and kids
with a psychopathic lack of awareness of their actions is that some of
them have a misguided notion that they can be helpful by pointing out
the insecurity of the software operating system that runs the world.
And to a certain extent, given the lack of interest by the responsible
parties, they can be useful. Without these borderline kids, we might
not know where our vulnerabilities lay until it's too late. It's a
little like saying that the safe-cracker is responsible for better bank
security but in an holistic, networked world, everything has its place,
even bad things. The best we can do is minimize the flaws in the
system. Having a Mac or Linux goes a long way toward that.
"Why computer virus writers are useful and we should thank them."
http://www.zone-h.org/en/news/read/id=3287/
Are you happy knowing that your local nuclear plant or subway turnstile
is run on Windows OS? You might want to leave your doors and windows
open, and that makes sense, but some things are too powerful to be left
to chance. And the Internet is nothing if not chance, and good at that
and should be so, and more so, but we need firewalls and protection,
heat shields, it's powerful stuff out there. It's arrogance to ignore
it.
In "Conversations about the End of Time," Steven Jay Gould talks about
humans versus bacterial life in terms of geologic time and wonders
whether our system that values consciousness or bacteria's criteria
that values numbers and longlastingness truly "rule the world."
The young man who did the blaster.b damage didn't try very hard to
cover his tracks. His name was in the open in the virus. As was a
statement criticizing Microsoft, for which he was asked to "apologize."
He was probably consumed with what he was doing and had a blurred sense
of boundaries, a lack of human consciousness or concern for others. His
parents were at fault for not recognizing and dealing with this kid's
detachment.
In the scheme of things the juvenile delinquent may allow us to learn
where real hardened criminals can exploit our insecurities. They follow
in the paths of criminals, but because they are vulnerable, they expose
themselves and we are able to identify them more easily than criminal
grups. There may have been an overgrown kid at the computer in the
basement, but wormkid was really just a part of the big picture. You
wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that had a poor safety record, why
do we tolerate lax standards for the internet, for our secure
transactions as well as personal thoughts and communication?
It's about our sense of values and priorities. We can't plug all the
holes but we can create more secure environments that allow for
creative play and contributory work. If we emphasize prosecution and
punishment we will create a criminal underclass with nothing but
negative enforcement to keep us safe. Chicanery, "destructive and
antisocial behavior" won't go away, but acknowledging them is only
realistic. I believe in the goodness of humanity, as you do, but we
need oversight else we will lose our way. Microsoft has failed to lead
us into the brave new world we face.
Kathy
Maurice Weitman on sat 5 feb 05
At 9:32 PM -0500 on 2/4/05, John Hesselberth wrote:
>{...} We probably get what we
>deserve when we continue to buy products that are known to be so
>vulnerable and defective. We wouldn't buy more of a clay body that
>gives us trouble--why do we so with computers and their software?
Hello, John,
I agree with your sentiments, but I think the clay analogy isn't
strong. There's a lot more to lose in giving up on a computer and
Ooperating systems than swapping clay bodies. But allow me to count
(some of) the ways in answer to your (perhaps rhetorical) question:
1) Loyalty/Fear: we don't like change generally and converting seems
like it would be as much fun as shoving a hot, sharp stake up our nose
2) Money: Aside from the hardware investment, we may worry about an
investment in software. Although this might not really apply much
these days... more and more folks use the web and email more than
anything else. Graphics software is either cross-platform compatible
or easily replicated on other platforms.
3) Learning curve: we have a perceived investment in OS-specific
knowledge - but learning a well-designed OS isn't all that bad, and
the benefits will easily make it worthwhile
4) Safety in numbers: "everybody" else uses it. Remember when
"everybody" used AOL? And so what?
5) Denial (and/or the "Devil you know" theory): "Oh... it's not so
bad; it'll get better; the grass is brown on both sides; don't switch
horses in mid-stream, there's a war going on" etc.
There's a timely, relevant article in yesterday's San Francisco
Chronicle online edition (sfgate.com):
which is also available with
Regards,
Maurice
| |
|
