ISPs should be liable for virus damage

If computer viruses were to suddenly be eradicated overnight, much to the delight of users, what would be the reaction of software producers?

After all, anti-virus protection is a multi-million pound business. I imagine their reaction would be dismay, disbelief and horror as millions of pounds of software became obsolete and millions of pounds of business was wiped out overnight.

The majority of viruses come from the internet and ISPs, I am sure, could prevent most getting to the end user. If the public can protect their systems with the available software, why can't the ISP do it for us?

Whilst I am not going to suggest that the likes of Norton clap with glee when another virus hits the net, lets be honest - it does bring in the millions. And the cost of such anti-virus producers advertising must run into millions per year, so by scaremongering they pressure people into believing they must have the latest anti-virus software.

It is time that ISPs were liable for the content of what is downloaded from the web, and should the content contain harmful viruses they should be liable for repairing the damage.

I wonder how far away we are from the first test case - now that would be interesting.

J Shingler

October 13, 2005 in Spyware | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

How are we hooked by phishing?

My internet service provider Supanet tells me that emails which attempt to get my bank details and other personal information are not genuine and should be ignored - but I already knew that. What they can't or won't tell me is how I receive, via their service, phishing emails that are not addressed  to me.

I have received several such emails in which the first six letters of the address are the same as my own email address, and which conclude with the words: @supanet.com, but in which the middle letters are nothing like those in the middle of my own.

Do you have any idea how this happens?

GD Thompson

June 24, 2005 in Spyware | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Authorities shy from protecting us from spyware

Thank you Guy Kewney. I read  your article on Spyware (PCW, April) at just the right time.

My wife's computer had been getting slower and slower so I decided to give it the once-over. Apart from disabling a great many totally unnecessary start-up  programmes, cleaning the main drive and defragmenting (even in Safe Mode this took hours), I ran Registry Mechanic which discovered a large number of errors, Spybot which found an equal number of nasties and Ad-Aware which discovered 117 files left on her computer by whoever feels like doing so.

I pointed this out  to her, expecting some Brownie points but was met with the 'so what' attitude  Guy mentioned. I then asked how she would feel if while out shopping she was followed the whole time by a creepy individual who noted every shop she visited and every item she purchased. This time her attitude changed and she replied that she would call the police.

Why can't we call the police or some authority to stop computer spyware? Where do they get the right to install things on other people's computers? Why can't the Civil Liberties people forget about  Asylum Seekers and Identity Cards for a moment and address the issues PCW quite rightly raises?

I find the whole business of spyware totally abhorrent, but I am mystified as to why it is allowed.

Paul

See also: Fooling the ad-man's spyware

April 21, 2005 in Spyware | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Fooling the ad-man's spyware

Guy Kewney’s attack on spyware (Can Spyware come in from the cold? April 2005’s issue) sends shivers down the spine.

It is unclear from his article how far spyware goes: whether our emails are read by big business, or read in order to build a profile of us, or whether they are being read and our browser behaviour analysed so that profiles can be used to aim advertising at our soft targets.

What is clear is that it is possible. And that which is possible, is probably being done. I find this depressing. It is also depressing that most of the people Guy asks don’t seem to be bothered.

But most depressing of all is Guy’s assertion that we are all so predictable that the ad army can gun us down with ease.

The straight and level flight of my life is read from these very keystrokes, and puts me on the adman’s radar. Now let’s move this around a bit: this glimpse into the abyss of predictability could be - should be - more character-building than Groundhog Day. Do we want to be sitting ducks for the sporting pleasure of material-mongers?

So this week I’m mostly surfing for holidays in Marbella on behalf of my orchid growing chums. Next week I shall be a vegan motorbike rider seeking silent films that feature sitars. If I shop on the internet it will be for stuffed kites and feather boa constrictors one day and volt-free relays the next.

I will be devious and my profile will make less sense than one painted by Picasso. From now on I am dedicating my life to glorious unpredictability.

Tim Rigley

March 10, 2005 in Spyware | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack