At 12:12 -0400 21/4/10, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own
is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal.
But that's not what happened.
Wierd idea of "did not happen" - in what way does "we will push an
update that has the sole purpose of making your software stop
working" NOT constitute "Knowingly disabling running software" ?
- It is a simple fact - the team made the decision to push this update.
- It is a simple fact that the purpose of this update was to make
running software break.
- It is a simple fact that this was a desired outcome of the update.
These are simple facts supported by their statement that they were
going to do this, and what the expected outcome was going to be.
Given these simple facts, I really, really cannot understand the
mindset that still claims that the ClamAV team did NOT knowingly
disable software running on other people's machines.
Could someone please explain how on earth you can still claim that
"this didn't happen" - and by what logic process you arrive at such a
statement ?
The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit
permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch
signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing
an update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be
fetched.
--
Simon Hobson
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
