well, i've seen the kassensturz stuff just some minutes ago. i must say, that this is absolut unfair from the media (in name: kassensturz ) throwing the ball of the responsability to the ISP. what do the customer wants? a safe internet with filtering or the free internet and he has to take care of his stuff? i mean, we all know what happens if the ISP begins the filter: 'ooh no, its not working anymore! please redo it!'.
if someone with intention to break in somewhere walks along my open frontdoor and sees that nobody is at home, he'll probably 'break' in. would the press criticise the manufacturer of the door? i dont think so. and i think everywhere (even at green) the customer has the choice between several (NAT and NON-NAT) devices he can use. if the customer want to get is at cheap as possible - sorry, thats he's problem if he wants to save money at his own security. just my 2 cents.. -steven > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alexander Bochmann > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [swinog] FW: Kassensturz > > > ...on Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:20:45PM +0000, John Morgan Salomon wrote: > > > /me wonders how long some cretin from the Blick will start screaming > > how ISPs should be held legally responsible for end-customer > > workstation security. > > And the next step would be: Well, and if that's > possible, why the hell can't the providers keep > all that illegal content off the net? > > After all we all know it's the home of child porn > traders and warez and hackers. > > Alex. > > -- > AB54-RIPE > > ---------------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/ > ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
