Hamish MacEwan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 15:38 +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/technology/05VIRU.html?ex=1077173129&ei=1&en=a25513797d965d8b
I think if computers are the problem, and they are, because all these problems would go away with computers if they left (as would a lot of benefits), then they have to be the solution too.
We can't teach everyone one on earth to be a "computer sophisticate," however quickly Microsoft is reducing that bar, they won't have space left for all the other non-computer things they have to know as well as some know IT.
I'm not sure I agree - that sounds a bit like the argument "It's a fair cop, guv, but society's to blame". I think people have take responsibilities for their actions and I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that if these lusers can't act responsibly on the net then either they should piss off or what's probably more likely the geeks should piss off and play in their own sandpit elsewhere. I speak as someone who with 'missionary like' zeal promoted the Internet for All view for a long time. As I get older and more reactionary I am more inclined to the view that most people are not equipped to be connected to the net with a powerful general purpose computer that they have no clue about. That doesn't mean that they can't be connected but that they need connected in a different way. Geoff Huston's talk at BGP04 proposed a model (Geoff, have you a link to the presentation? and the last half of the talk is available at http://www.r2.co.nz/20040129/) where the vast majority of users were effectively limited at their ISP to the half dozen or so things they need/want to do: email (but not able to connect globally to port 25) browse the net (via a proxy) games ..... Now before you all go off half cock about "I need 'ssh/irc/telnet/ftp/whois/weird protocol X' access think about what *most punters* need/want. I've watch this list turn into a discussion for large chunks of the time on how to fight virus fires which aren't helped by the combination of irresponsible users and systems manufacturers pouring petrol on the problem. At times I feel like saying could we have an NZ Virus Operations Group that deals with this somewhere else. (Along with the NZ Barrack Room Lawyers Group!) So unless you want to spend the rest of your life constantly fighting epidemics of virus infection then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how we can increase the level of Internet Public Health. There's pretty clear evidence that large chunks of the improvement in physical health in the last century were the results of improvements in santitation and hygiene and not just as the result of wonder drugs. McAfee, Norton etc are like drug companies - they have a job to do but perhaps its time to really start leaning on people to do the Internet equivalent of 'wash their hands, use disinfectants and use condoms (or even safer, restraint!)'
It is computers that have to become more sophisticated servants rather than humanity becoming a race of IT staff.
sophisticate: To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly So wouldn't have sensible default settings for firewalling and things like opening attachments etc be a start?