On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Greg Kettmann wrote:
> Yes, I accept my share of the responsibility but I really, REALLY think
> that M1/AT&T, who have the resources, should be doing something to try to
> actually go after the crackers.
What do you suggest they do?
What makes you think they have the resources? They are a data provider, not
an information security firm.
Serious questions, both.
> I think simply discontinuing someones service "forever" and ignoring the
> "cracker" is not an appropriate behavior.
I think their policy is a little unforgiving, in that you basically have two
strikes, and then you are banned for life.
On the other hand, look at it from their point of view: You were violating
their terms of service. They told you to stop. You ignored them. They
terminated your service.
I think it is important to see *all* sides of the story here.
> So please, any suggestions for writing to cover M1's responsibility in all
> this?
I suggest attacking it from the angle that HSISPs (High Speed Internet
Service Providers) are selling a service without informing their customers of
the dangers inherent in connecting to a public network (regardless of OS).
If they want to wash their hands of all responsibility, that is their right --
but that should be made crystal clear up front.
To continue the car analogy: HSISPs are selling Formula One race cars
without letting people know such cars are not as safe as the family Volvo
station wagon.
The other thing I would focus on is the monopoly aspect of Cable Internet
providers. There is no possibility of another company coming in and offering
data services *and* information security services, i.e., a "safe" Internet
connection. American Capitalism depends on competition to force corporate
change. Cable monopolies have no incentive to improve things.
> Are they really taking the most appropriate actions and doing all they can
> to make the Internet safe for everyone?
(This is really starting to turn into a political argument, but what the
hell...)
Is it their responsibility to make sure the Internet is safe for everyone?
> But it really bothers me that M1 can have so little corporate
> responsibility for solving these problems.
I don't expect this to make you feel any better, but I've discovered that
"corporate responsibility" is an oxymoron.
> Finally, I'm very concerned about the perception here that Linux is bad
> for the Internet.
The Internet is bad for the Internet.
> True Windows is a brick and Linux a Porsche but people buying stuff at
> Best Buy don't care about that. They just want to browse the web.
If they just want to browse the web, then it really doesn't matter what they
buy. Indeed, they are probably better off with a $600 Windows PC that can
run all the silly gags and tricks that people forward around in email. If it
gets virused, they wipe the drive with the restore CD and pick-up where they
left off.
> If a Linux box is more capable of doing damage on the web ...
It is simply that Linux is cheaper. With Windows, you have to pay and pay
and pay every time you want to do something. Linux includes it all for free.
You can do all this from Windows, the user just has to pay tens of thousands
in software licenses to do it.
> The perception here is that Linux is a loose cannon on the Internet ...
One could take that view. But it would be rather like blaming Media One for
one's system getting cracked. ;-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or |
| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
