Microsoft VP Suggests 'Net Tax To Clean Computers 577
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."
Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I clean this stuff off computers every day in my business as part of doing business in my shop. You can't honestly say that Security Essentials is top notch. It is a good product in that it doesn't nag you like AVG does and it isn't as heavy on the system as AVG, Norton, and McAfee. As far as malware detection goes it only knows so much and what it does know isn't that much. I use it as a final scan not as the main scan because it doesn't have the teeth of some of the other free products.
It's an OK prod
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I second this. I use Microsoft Security Essentials on everything now and it does work pretty good.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah... but does it run... never mind.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Security Essentials is free too, and works pretty good.
AFAIK, it doesn't work on pirated Windows, nor does it work on Win2K.
It does work on pirated Windows. Not that I would know, myself. But some guy told me. I think he lives in Canada but I don't remember.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:4, Insightful)
How about not pirating software at all? Ever think of that?
*begin rant*
Get a nice package, like CATIA or CS4. Put your nastiness in the .iso files along with the "crack." Upload to a bunch of bittorrent trackers.
???
Profit.
What, you think people *scan* their pirated software? Ever get into a discussion with a warez weenie? "Oh, those are just false positives. I _know_ it's not infected"
There is no honor in the warez scene anymore. Oh, sure, private trackers, you say. But Joe User doesn't have access to private trackers. The concept of an md5 sum flies straight over Joe User's head and makes his eyes glaze over when you try to explain what it is. Joe User is the perfect mark for this kind of stuff.
If you run pirated software, you're likely part of the problem.
*end rant*
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does it work on Linux?
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Funny)
No, 2009 is still correct, if that's when he copyrighted his sig, (hah!). It will still be the correct copyright date in 2011 and 2012 and 2013... no scratch that last one. The world will (apparently) not likely make it past 2012.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't be bothered?
Have you *used* anti-virus software lately? It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.
I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan. I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
* I don't trust free downloads unless they're open source, or a google on "$SOFTWARE spyware" comes up clean.
* I don't browse porn (or anything else) on internet explorer.
* I don't browse porn with adblock turned off.
* I don't download stupid free desktop frills, like smileys and crap.
* I don't open obvious spam, even if it appears to be from my friends.
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it. Instead, I close the web page.
* When doing p2p file-sharing, I use clients that are well known and spyware free.
* I don't put audio CDs into my machine when I'm running Windows, because they might install rootkits.
* 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.
* Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it. Instead, I close the web page.
lol@that
It's funny to see those pages on Linux. "OMG UR WINDOWS ARE INFECTED"
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:4, Funny)
Lets see here an average anti-virus is going to:
A) Waste lots of network resources downloading updates
B) Constantly use up I/O resources scanning every file
C) Mess with defaults
D) Use a completely different theme ruining whatever aesthetic pleasure there was in Windows
E) Constantly use CPU time
F) Constantly say that your subscription has OMG 60 DAYS LEFT!!!! THATS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS!!!! Usually when giving a presentation
G) Interrupt gaming
H) Ignore all -real- threats like the Sony Rootkit and the like
An average virus is going to
Use some I/O resources finding sensitive files, use light network resources sending spam and generally work in the background.
My experience is going to be less interrupted with a virus than an AV.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using Avast for the last few years. Free for home use and a damn good product.
A) Sure it updates almost every day - but it has almost no impact on my network (and I'm from Oz where "Broadband" means a bit faster than dial up).
B) Its impact when scanning is not noticable. It scans the file you modify or try to open.
C) WTF? What defaults? The "I can download and run viruses by default" defaults?
D) Avast 99% of the time is a pair of icons in your system tray. If the look and feel of your virus scanner is one of you concerns then your worried about the wrong thing...
E) Avast doesn't constantly use CPU time. A decent virus scanner of any kind would us OS Hooks to identify when it needs to look at files/processes. It won't need to be doing anything unless you are and then it only needs a quick look at the file/process to see if it recognises it.
F) Avasts free license expires every 12 months. It takes around a minute to renew. Big deal.
G) *sigh* Seriously. There are millions of gamers around the world that have virus scanners installed. There's also quite a number of game developers with virus scanners installed. When was the last time that you read that your virus scanner should be disabled before playing game ? Sure the downloads of updates can cause a few moments of lag - but big deal.
H) I'm sorry but WTF? Sure Sony's rootkit can be considered a threat. But REAL threats are actually more things like Confiker, Trojans etc. Viruses etc. that (a) might destroy your PC, (b) be used as part of a botnet, (c) steal your personal data etc.
You're worried about how you virus scanner looks, and a slight interruption to your gaming, but not about the impact of having a virus. The fact that that virus may wipe your machine, cause your machine to be responsible for attacking other machines, or cause masses of SPAM e-mail to be sent out doesn't concern you? I take it then that your ISP doesn't care that you might be responsible for infecting other machines, sending SPAM etc.
Take your tinfoil hat off and go out and get some sunshine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Avast! too and it's quite goo-VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED!
Just make sure you turn the sounds off...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But when you buy a Rolex from Cartier, you don't expect to get a cheap $5 knock off.
You also don't expect to get a Rolex from Cartier.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:4, Informative)
I've been virus free for decades now, following these basic rules, and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I haven't caught a case of the stupids when I wasn't looking.
I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
*For extremely large values of "neighbor".
Why should we pay for infected machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[quote]I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance. [/quote]
Why not fine the owners of spam generating machines to fund it, rather than using general taxation? That way, as long as you keep your PC malware free, you do not pay.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
QFT
Sorry, but I just can't see what Quantum Field Theory has to do with this.
Ah.. the registry. (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure where the redundancy idea comes from in your post. I've seen more than a few Windows systems fucked over by just one or two registry keys doing the wrong thing. The fact that the path to said registry keys is cryptic and over 100 characters long doesn't help.
Well the redundancy comes from the fact that the registry was backed up on every successful boot allowing you to restore it when things got fucked up. I don't see why its automatically "nonsense" because you had some problems that you fail to give specifics for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Backups_and_recovery [wikipedia.org]
Also, Changing 'one or two' keys can and will fuck up Windows. Thats the point. Because it hosts critical OS settings, If you delete specific keys, say for e.g. If you disable a driver
Alot of free anti-virus options (Score:2)
There are lots of free anti-virus options, no need to even pay $15.00 a year.
I have been using Avast for years now, its great. AVG also still has basic protection for free also.
It's not the cost, the main reason people have no anti-virus or out of date anti-virus is because they don't care enough or understand enough to care.
The trial-ware anti-virus approach also is something I think should be stopped. Too many people think "Oh Mcaffee was included with my computer, I don't have to get an anti-virus." N
Re:Alot of free anti-virus options (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I was going to point out that most people have some idea of how their car works, and how to do so safely, even if not the actual details, but then I recalled all the crazies driving down the freeway putting on make up, or shaving (I saw some guy doing that last week, talk about asking for a 'close shave'!), etc.
And then there's my wife, whose car's engine seized a couple of months after we moved into together. When I asked her when her last oil change was, she said (with a straight face), "Two years ago, I think." So I guess I can't really argue with you at all. Sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that anti-virus alone can't handle malware. It does a pretty good job, but all it takes is one zero day Flash exploit, or a website with a compromised iFrame and your compute^H^H^HWindows box is hosed. By the time anti-virus starts throwing warnings, it is generally because the computer is already infected and it is trying to download other components that the AV software actually has signatures for.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ are the last people who should be calling for a tax since it's their broken shit that caused decades of headaches.
Yes they've gotten better but that doesn't wipe out all the crap we'd had to live with all these years.
However, I think the real issue for a lot of users who aren't savvy is that they might be fed up of the bloatware
crap like Symantec / Norton / McAfee which (used to?) suck so much in terms of CPU usage and disk activity.
Better, cheaper alternatives have been around for years - AntiVir, AVG, Kaspersky, for example.
And I must say that Microsoft Security Essentials isn't half bad.
Instead of their stupid EULA, perhaps M$ should put up a warning during install or first run that a security product
is required and used the lack of one as an automatic shutdown after 2 weeks instead of their activation.
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ are the last people who should be calling for a tax
I suggest a special cleanup tax on Microsoft software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And, despite all their efforts, every month, every week, hell, almost every day another security exploit is discovered or released that shows just how broken previous versions of their platform is:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164038/Microsoft_Don_t_press_F1_key_in_Windows_XP [computerworld.com]
Of course, the biggest problem is that most users run Windows with Admin rights but M$ is to blame for making Windows too hard to run without full admin rights.
I would have had a lot more respect for them if they'd bought out
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I do IT security for one of those universities. Our IT is extremely decentralized. There are some central services. The network is managed centrally. But the majority of the computers are managed by individuals, departments, and colleges in whatever way they see best.
We charge a reconnect fee as part of our standard network security incident response. When we determine that a system is compromised, we disconnect it, and notify the owner. We reconnect it as soon as the owner pays the reconnect fee. The fee is $25 for the first reconnect and $50 for each reconnect after the first time. The fee is not kept by Security. It is transfered to the university Service desk.
It may sound silly, but we can demonstrate that the reconnect fee is our single, most effective security measure. We have detailed data on detected compromise for years before and after the beginning of the reconnect fee. When we started imposing the reconnect fee, our rate of detected compromise dropped to 1/10th the prior level. We believe that prior to the reconnect fee, people really felt that there was no reason to worry about compromise.
In the years that we have been doing this, it has always amazed me that such a small irritation can lead to so much behavioral change.
Charging the entire university for each compromise would not have the same effect. By charging the university entity that owns the compromised computer, we change that entity's behavior. Even when we are effectively moving money from 1 pocket to another. The reconnect fee is always an unanticipated expense. The reconnect fee is always an irritant. In effect, we have created an institutional pain response to compromise. We can tell it is still working, because the university's community is still complaining about it. Once they stop complaining, we may have to up the fee.
Miles
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or what's more stupid, is when norton sees it but doesn't clean it because the file is in use...
I've never trusted an antivirus to do what I can do manually. Antiviruses are great for an afterwards cleanup scan.
Re: (Score:2)
The bad guys have access to Norton, McAfee, Avast, AVG, MSS, Spybot, Kaspery, Linux source, OS/X, and anything else that will or won't show up in the next 10, 20, 30 years. If you can download it, then so can they.
They test their software better than "legit" developers and thus they will always win.
Taxes are already paid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is this the same Government that created it? (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Taxes are already paid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, id rather the government stay out of my business.. If you demand they 'fix the problem', then they will be in your face every second you are online and you wont like the result.
Tax Credit? (Score:5, Funny)
Do Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They get double the tax.
Why? Because Mac and Linux are not Windows and therefore need special training for the cleaning crew.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The bit bucket needs regular emptying.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They get double the tax.
Why? Because Mac and Linux are not Windows and therefore need special training for the cleaning crew.
What are they cleaning?
Child porn. Why would you use Mac or Linux unless you had something to hide?
Re:Tax Credit? (Score:4, Insightful)
People who do not have children to send to school, or oppose the wars, or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.
Taxes are a collective action, not an individual purchase.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.
Re:Tax Credit? (Score:5, Interesting)
New Hampshire believes in an environment where tolls, gas taxes, and registration fees pay for the roads, property taxes pay for police and fire protection, those who get lost in the woods are billed for their rescue, hunting licenses pay for the regulation of hunters....
Basically, they have no sales or income tax, but you've got to pay for what you use. Want to save money? Stop doing wasteful things!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With a ridiculous approach to taxation like that, how would an entire nation manage to pay for important things like invasions of foreign countries and bailing out mismanaged banks?
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
With a ridiculous approach to taxation like that, how would an entire nation manage to pay for important things like invasions of foreign countries and bailing out mismanaged banks?
We already pay for bank mismanagement that way... all banks are required to have FDIC insurance, and all credit unions are required to either get FDIC coverage or an equal state program. Traditionally $100,000 of coverage has become $250,000 for the time being, again at the banks' expense. Some even carry more insurance than required so that they can reassure large depositors.
War taxes? Those are usually left behind long after the war is paid for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I think WWII really demonstrated how effective that strategy was when it was used at the Treaty of Versailles.
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays for the schools? Do you only have private, for pay libraries in New Hampshire? Your emergency rooms turn away people who can't pay, contrary to Federal law? You've installed pay turnstiles at all your public parks?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, they get arrested since only terrorists wouldn't use Windows..
Re: (Score:2)
linux has a small amount of malware too. Just because its safer than windows does not mean its perfectly safe and you never have to even think about security.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Linux, but not Mac. Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing. Mac even has it's own botnet
Hardly a problem and hardly growing. The item you refer to was a trojan that you had to install yourself by downloading pirated copy of iWorks 09 from a torrent and entering your admin password. It had nothing to do with a botnet and, although it could have been potentially troublesome, it never actually did anything. In fact, unless the user was running as Admin, the program would just exit because it needed sudo privileges to do it's job. Besides, even if you did get infected, it was easy to remove and as
We're taxed to pay for positive externalities. (Score:2)
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
Microsoft wants others to pay for its mistakes? (Score:4, Funny)
Who do they think they are, bankers?
I totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the proposed tax will just be passed along to the consumer, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cause Microsoft never let a zero-day exploit just sit around till they felt like patching it?
Sometimes they can be goaded into releasing a patch early.
Yes, most infections are for an exploit that is already patched, but not always.
From what font of wisdom did you pull that nugget? (Score:2)
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 bec
Re:I totally agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows Update, by default, installs random DRM bullshit, Windows Media bullshit, WGA bullshit, and lots of other things that are not security patches. That motivates a lot of people to turn it off.
I'm paying for WHAT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, just like the govt. healthcare 'reform' coming up...wants you to pay for Jerome and Debbie Public down the block who can't seem to understand contraception, exercise, food that isn't fast food, and that smoking is bad for you.
You might do things the right way...but the govt. is wanting you to also pony up for those that don't know or won't do the right things in
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, just like the govt. healthcare 'reform' coming up...wants you to pay for Jerome and Debbie Public down the block who can't seem to understand contraception, exercise, food that isn't fast food, and that smoking is bad for you
Do you have a source for this? I don't believe it is at all true.
The only thing even being considered at the moment is an individual mandate to buy insurance. It's total bullshit to anyone who doesn't own a health insurance company, but not because of the fictional situation you described.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't you love the government?
Re:I'm paying for WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines. Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.
Re:I'm paying for WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines. Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.
Baloney. Only *******s benefit from an educated and healthy society. *******s benefit from the alternative.
And yes, asterisks benefit from self-censors.
(Go on, count them to figure out whether you're offended.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Paying for someone else's fuck up. A lot of that going around these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, we already do. No matter how many "No, I won't effing fix your computer" T-shirts you own and wear, you still end up removing root-kits, eliminating spyware, and fixing damage done by the bits of malware for friends, relatives, or whoever. 'cause you "know about that stuff".
I already pay, I don't need to be "taxed". Hell, I could use the excuse "I gave at the office" too ...
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Thinboy,
We acknowledge your concern about the new Net Tax proposal, and would like to take a few moments to clarify our thoughts with you and other Microsoft product users. It has come to our understanding that there are many bad things on the internet. As you can tell from the last two decades, we here have been completely incapable at stopping these threats from manifesting. As such, our competitors are doing better and our profits are down. This usually means smaller bonuses for us in the Vice Presi
Tax Microsoft operating systems (Score:5, Interesting)
A special "insecure software" levy on software responsible for more than 10% of "owned" machines on the net would be more appropriate.
Deal. (Score:2, Flamebait)
In other words, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In other words, (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks to Microsoft, the typical computer user believes that sporadic crashing is unavoidable, machines and programs must be restarted periodically if they are to maintain efficiency, and that the threat of viruses is the price paid for the convenience of email. It has come to the point that recently, when trying to explain that it was important for long-running (scientific number-crunching) code to be careful about memory management, the people I was talking to refused to believe it was possible that a program could run for over a week without slowing down. Trying to convince people that the overhead of ECC in cost and speed for computers destined for number crunching is worthwhile is hard when they believe crashes and instability are as manageable and predictable as bad weather.
Remember the days of breathless warnings about emails, which if read, would destroy your computer? And how Microsoft made the dream come true?
I should not be surprised at the gall of Microsoft to suggest that this world-wide problem, born from their neglect and short-sightedness, should be addressed with public money.
Like all new government programs (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I see how this works (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Sure, Why not (Score:2)
Fix health care first you FUCKER (Score:2)
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.
why not a fine instead (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Shove it. (Score:3, Informative)
So long as I get a tax credit (Score:5, Insightful)
I support it if I get a tax credit for not having any windows machines.
too big to succeed (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Unfair characterisation (Score:2)
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 ?
I have a better idea (Score:2)
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.
no tax - accountability (Score:2)
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.
inspection and quarantine (Score:2)
This via door to door searches?
I don't run anti-virus (Score:2)
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 mach
Wordplay is no reasoning. (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, I forgot some words: "Computers are devices upon which we rely greatly, but not so much as our bodies and as such it follows that they don't require the same universal care."
Dear Microsoft Fuckwad: (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
who better to suggest a tax on computers (Score:2)
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 sec
A carbon-trade approach might be better... (Score:2)
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.
How about we tax MS instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that the GOP would get behind that platform...
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is more like blaming a car maker who does not put brakes in the car for a hit and run.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that Macs and Linux machines are unhackable, do you? It's just that XP was so easy to hack, and had such a huge market share, that you'd be foolish to hack other systems.