On Friday 10 October 2003 15:48, Jaco Swart wrote: > The problem is not the lack of security in software, but companies that > create the impression that their software is perfectly secure. If I sell > you a house, and tell you that it has first class locks, but in truth they > are pretty lousy, - maybe then you would like to take me to task? > > If you sell something, you have got to make sure it works the way you say > it does. In the electronic bussiness, we have to face the music when we > screw up, so we do our best not to screw up. Why should software be > different?
A fair point. Microsoft should not be allowed to advertise their software as secure unless it actually is, of course. The problem is that "secure" is a very subjective thing. If she was taking them to court because they told her their software was secure, and she relied on this information, and then found that she had been mislead, then fair enough. To me though this looks more like "I have no choice but to use their product, so then when their product doesn't perform up to the standard I would like, I'll sue them to make them make their product the way I want it". As was touched on in the article (I think), if software companies take this kind of responsibility, their prices will surely rise. And as Jason pointed out, who takes responsibility for free software? Surely a person has the right to say "I'm giving you this for free, use it at your own risk if you like, but I don't take any responsibility for it. I'm offering you this, it's up to you if you take it". Right? When you log into a Debian GNU/Linux system for example, you see the "blah blah blah... ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY". This is fair enough. If they give it away for free, why should they be asked to take responsibility for it too? So to extend this idea, surely a person (or company, such as Microsoft) has the right to say "We're selling you this for a [in our opinion] very low price, we're almost _giving_ it to you it's so dirt cheap, but we don't take any responsibility for it. We're offering you this, it's up to you if you take it". If you want security too, or someone else to take responsibility for your security, you pay for it. But I agree that if Microsoft were to say "our software is secure. If you are using it as per the instructions you should be safe to keep your SSN number and credit card number on your computer and our system will keep them safe. That's part of what you're paying us for" (or similar, exagerated a little to make my point)... and then the customer places their trust in this, uses the system as per the instructions, and then takes damages when the system fails them, then fair enough they should have them up in court. I hope I've illustrated the difference. Sorry for the long post everyone :) So the question is, does Microsoft claim their software is secure? Cheers, Gareth ps. I think the phrase "buyer beware" applies here. Make sure you know what you are and aren't getting for your money. And make a judgement about whether you think it's worth the price you're paying. If you think you're getting a bad deal, you have the option of voting with your feet :)
