__/ [Colin Day] on Sunday 01 January 2006 07:26 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [Robert Newson] on Saturday 31 December 2005 19:59 \__
>>>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Anthony Scott Clark, 21, of Beaverton admitted to working with several
>>>> other people to take control of 20,000 computers. According to the US
>>>> Department of Justice, Clark in 2003 exploited a vulnerability in
>>>> Windows - big surprise there - to gain access to the computers and
>>>> knock eBay and other sites offline via DDoS (distributed denial of
>>>> service) attacks.
>>>Shouldn't MS be held accountable to Aiding and Abetting him in his
>>>misdemeanor be distributing the software with the 20,000 computers with
>>>ability to be remotely controlled by him? Especially seeing as they knew
>>>about virus problems and exploits used by them back in the MSDOS days.
>> I once initiated a thread about this in uk.legal. Most people said that a
>> case could not be made.
>> You could blame the ISP for harbouring infected machines and an attacker
>> that uses them as puppets. You could also be bitter about search engines
>> that often motivate such attacks. As for Microsoft, their licences
>> probably defend them somehow. No doubt their products are destroying
> Then can one blame users for agreeing to the EULA?
> Colin Day aa #1500
No, but just turn the tables upside-down (
http://www.fsffrance.org/news/article2005-11-25.en.html ) and ban Windows
from the shops. Argue that it is not secure, it encourages floods of network
junk (including DDOS attacks), and proliferates secret formats that serve a
monopoly and discriminate many.