This is an excellent idea! Lets penalise the consumers for faulty software they purchased in good faith. Next we get the government to take all faulty vehicles off the road if the manufacturers don't make them safe.
Microsoft: We should block infected PCs from the Internet
- Thread starter Matthew DeCarlo
- Start date
I do have access to the internet in the bill of rights.
i do not need approval or certification from anyone anywhere to communicate however I want with whomever I want.
This is a dumb idea. Maybe we could make each human on the planet get certified in proper English before you are allowed to talk to anyone.
People: do you have trouble recognizing a totalitarian idea? You cannot do anything web-realated unless some un-named organization says you have an active, approved product on your computer.
In other words, He who has the gold makes the rules. He who gets to declare who can be on the internet controls the internet.
You think you have trouble getting through on a Tech Support line now? Imagine all ten jillion web users.
In business, if we don't like the service from one AV company, we switch.
With this global governance, how do you switch if they don't perform well?
Will the leaders be globally elected, so we can vote them out?
Or will they be a bunch of appointed/nominated rogue, well-funded do-gooder hedonists like in the EU or UN?
Open your civics book. To the chapter called "taxation without representation."
If y'all fall for this, maybe you will fall for some global un-elected, un-accountable board which decides how much energy each nation is allowed to use, adn gets to decide how much tax is placed on each and evey bit of energy expenditure across the globe.
I call it global carbon cap-and-trade.
i do not need approval or certification from anyone anywhere to communicate however I want with whomever I want.
This is a dumb idea. Maybe we could make each human on the planet get certified in proper English before you are allowed to talk to anyone.
People: do you have trouble recognizing a totalitarian idea? You cannot do anything web-realated unless some un-named organization says you have an active, approved product on your computer.
In other words, He who has the gold makes the rules. He who gets to declare who can be on the internet controls the internet.
You think you have trouble getting through on a Tech Support line now? Imagine all ten jillion web users.
In business, if we don't like the service from one AV company, we switch.
With this global governance, how do you switch if they don't perform well?
Will the leaders be globally elected, so we can vote them out?
Or will they be a bunch of appointed/nominated rogue, well-funded do-gooder hedonists like in the EU or UN?
Open your civics book. To the chapter called "taxation without representation."
If y'all fall for this, maybe you will fall for some global un-elected, un-accountable board which decides how much energy each nation is allowed to use, adn gets to decide how much tax is placed on each and evey bit of energy expenditure across the globe.
I call it global carbon cap-and-trade.
G
Guest
Here are a few points of why this line of thinking is bad...
1. Who the F*** is microsoft to declare what's infected and what isn't? I don't recall MS being appointed the governing body on the internet over what traffic is 'clean' and what might constitute malicious traffic.
2. Today, shutting down 'botnets' for "public safety". Next, using it as a vehicle for disabling services to organizations such a governing body doesn't agree with. Major net neutrality problems.
3. The obvious privacy concerns. To have your computer ask permission to access the internet each and every time to a single, government or commercially operated organization is very frighting. What would such a protocol be called? MMI (Mother, May I?)
4. It raises a potential for a new type of denial of service. Spoof traffic it so that it appears to be originating from a target network, and sit back and wait for them to be shut off by the "Internet Bot Police". Now the target organization has to cut red tape just to have service restored. Can one imagine the frustrations of network admins having to jump through hoops to get a judge to restore service? New network certifications would have to include an entire section on international law!
5. If it were to be implemented in microsoft's operating systems directly, it would only pertain to their operating systems. Mac and Linux operating systems, while much more difficult, are just as susceptible to malicious programs participating in botnets.
1. Who the F*** is microsoft to declare what's infected and what isn't? I don't recall MS being appointed the governing body on the internet over what traffic is 'clean' and what might constitute malicious traffic.
2. Today, shutting down 'botnets' for "public safety". Next, using it as a vehicle for disabling services to organizations such a governing body doesn't agree with. Major net neutrality problems.
3. The obvious privacy concerns. To have your computer ask permission to access the internet each and every time to a single, government or commercially operated organization is very frighting. What would such a protocol be called? MMI (Mother, May I?)
4. It raises a potential for a new type of denial of service. Spoof traffic it so that it appears to be originating from a target network, and sit back and wait for them to be shut off by the "Internet Bot Police". Now the target organization has to cut red tape just to have service restored. Can one imagine the frustrations of network admins having to jump through hoops to get a judge to restore service? New network certifications would have to include an entire section on international law!
5. If it were to be implemented in microsoft's operating systems directly, it would only pertain to their operating systems. Mac and Linux operating systems, while much more difficult, are just as susceptible to malicious programs participating in botnets.
Trillionsin
Posts: 1,910 +488
Okay, I literally only read the first few lines and the thought came to my mind... "If they are going to completely block you from the internet that you legally pay for and deserve your access too then they will have to offer build in free antivirus protection. On the other hand, I dont really like the power and control this gives them, invasion of privacy and such.. blah blah...
G
Guest
Everyone saying "Yes" might as well, hand over their wallet/purse and keys to their house/car and newborn child. Seriously though if these flawed ideas get passed, you have yourselves to blame when all things fail.
ISP: How can we help you?
Customer: I can't access my internet!
ISP: Well we've been told, you have an infected PC, so you're cut off until otherwise known.
Customer: *insert what you want here*
I was leaning towards yes and then thought about it, read the whole article and firmly said no! This is the worst logical idea, as people have pointed out before. Who's to stop a false attack, against say.. an ISP that won't cooperate? Then suddenly that service is cut off, the smaller services will be disappearing under all these problems. Soon we'll have a global ISP, where it's pretty much a dictatorship. They want full control of our lives, people are too blind to know who "they" really are.
There's nothing here worthwhile, what if you were using an older OS? Not all schools upgrade to the best, would that mean they'd be given free PC's or something? Nope, nothing at all. Just means the whole school as a whole, could be shut down if things are not up to requirements. I've been in public and high schools, who ran from 95 and 98 OS's. Does that mean will Microsoft, somehow extend support for em now? Hardly!
Enforce the rule of upgrading OS to something more secure, and also by the way.. use an AV only they approve of. None of those "perfect" AV services, that don't have major impacts. It's better to take the giant bloatware AV packs, that will cripple your PC and make it it's slave. Then you can use the internet, unless of course that service fails in protecting you. Have fun fixing that one, being all those giant companies don't always work. It's been proven before, it takes multiple ones usually to protect better. No one program is perfect.
ISP: How can we help you?
Customer: I can't access my internet!
ISP: Well we've been told, you have an infected PC, so you're cut off until otherwise known.
Customer: *insert what you want here*
I was leaning towards yes and then thought about it, read the whole article and firmly said no! This is the worst logical idea, as people have pointed out before. Who's to stop a false attack, against say.. an ISP that won't cooperate? Then suddenly that service is cut off, the smaller services will be disappearing under all these problems. Soon we'll have a global ISP, where it's pretty much a dictatorship. They want full control of our lives, people are too blind to know who "they" really are.
There's nothing here worthwhile, what if you were using an older OS? Not all schools upgrade to the best, would that mean they'd be given free PC's or something? Nope, nothing at all. Just means the whole school as a whole, could be shut down if things are not up to requirements. I've been in public and high schools, who ran from 95 and 98 OS's. Does that mean will Microsoft, somehow extend support for em now? Hardly!
Enforce the rule of upgrading OS to something more secure, and also by the way.. use an AV only they approve of. None of those "perfect" AV services, that don't have major impacts. It's better to take the giant bloatware AV packs, that will cripple your PC and make it it's slave. Then you can use the internet, unless of course that service fails in protecting you. Have fun fixing that one, being all those giant companies don't always work. It's been proven before, it takes multiple ones usually to protect better. No one program is perfect.
G
Guest
The majority of people that have chosen the "blue pill" will find out too late what all this really means.
paulanthony
Posts: 13 +0
I don't like the idea of being the fun police telling me what software I should have or not have, and I think the idea is just a money making trick by vendors and purveyors of yet more bullshit AV and spyware programs thast just lull people into a false sense of security for a price!.
Man who do you think writes this (viruses) crap anyways, its the same people selling the antidote
bah! humbug!
Man who do you think writes this (viruses) crap anyways, its the same people selling the antidote
bah! humbug!
G
Guest
Used correctly, the expression is "could NOT care less". It's seldom used correctly.
paulanthony
Posts: 13 +0
Hooray, at last someone has an idea!
G
Guest
Breaking News: Malware uses health certificate to propagate itself
ISP don't want to do anything but complains that the traffic is increasing too much and so that they have to increase their fee but most of the mail traffic is spam ! They should be forced ( by laws or regulations) to take a part in the sanitization of the Internet : e.g. the server (my SMTP or the first link from the site I look at) where data enter the internet should run an antivirus against it (reject the data with virus and send a warning mail to the sender), an antispam program and check that the return address in the HDLC frame (denial of service) correspond to the sender. All of these are not 100% efficient but should improve the situation of the network.
The possibility to detect if the sender is part of a botnet should be studied.
I am against the blocking of the offender connection (except in case of repeated offences) but I think that a warning is required.
Microsoft can improve the situation with more secure softwares and a warning (with confirmation asked) message when I try to run a script on an attachment...
The possibility to detect if the sender is part of a botnet should be studied.
I am against the blocking of the offender connection (except in case of repeated offences) but I think that a warning is required.
Microsoft can improve the situation with more secure softwares and a warning (with confirmation asked) message when I try to run a script on an attachment...
GonchuB
Posts: 19 +0
But the problem lies when people try to do something important over the internet and they realize they are not able to do so. Some are not so experienced and do not know how to take care of infections or how to prevent them, they just get into the machine, check what they need to check and leave. Although I think it is fair for all the other user who get compromised from other machine's virus, I don't believe this is a fair policy for those unexperienced user who will have to pay for virus repair on a monthly basis.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the impression that there's a distinct effort on the rise to control anything the "public" has access to. I see so many things wrong with this idea, I hardly know where to start. This is just another attempt to get the camel's nose into the tent. The minute I hear "Government intervention", I tense up and guard my wallet. These people *never* get it right. But, what they do is set in motion a chain re-action that they can't control, but negatively affects others that were not intended to be affected. This is called the law of unintended consequences. These people have way too much time on their hands. They can't seem to abide by the principals of live and let live. The are like the ever-present Nanny that tries to control every waking moment of the child they are in charge of. Hey, but nobody hired them to be in change of anything! What's wrong with the model in place now? Anyone that's on the Internet/Web should have enough sense to know the environment itself most closely mimics a free society. In a free society, it is ultimately crippling to have your personal responsibilities for protecting yourself usurped by any nameless, faceless agency that will ultimately get around to dictating how, when and where you can have access to... fill in the blank. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither." - a quote from Benjamin Franklin; an individual who was smarter than most. 'Nuff said.
jakeshjo1953
Posts: 24 +0
I know something has got to be done but keeping the low guy who can't afford all the wistles and bells is going to hurt more in the long run. I don't have a regular job, I'm disabled and live off of my Social Security benefits to take care of three of us. I do have free antivirus and I have a yearly update on my Iobit antimalewhere package. I really can't afford that. There are a lot of people out there that have even less than I do and can't afford anything. Do you just punish them for not having? just a thought.
We have to remember that malicious software often goes with knowingly malicoius users who chose to ignore security updates solely for the purposes of spreading crapware all over! They just acted like they are clueless but they know how to maintain their computers but choose not to.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
OpenAI considers letting users create AI-generated porn- midian182 replied