Rob Thompson wrote: > This is akin to closing down a freaking bank, because they cashed a > fraudulent check.
No -- to stick with your grievously weak analogy, it is much more like very heavily (punitively -- get it?) fining a bank and its manager for repeatedly cashing fraudulent checks _from one known fraudster_. If the penalty is enough to actually put the bank out of the business, the other customers move their accounts with that bank to another bank and get on with their lives. AND you can bet that they will be quite a bit more careful in checking out the bona fides and likely business practices when evaluating the prospective banks for that move! Finally, as all that is at issue in this case are just bits at rest on server drives and zipping around fibre and copper circuits, it's much easier and MUCH LESS disruptive to the other customers of the convicted, active, complicit fraud-enabler in the online world than in your bricks-and-mortar bank analogy. If you're going draw analogies, please at least try to make them modestly apposite... Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
