On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:27:36 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:49:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
><newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>__/ [ Alex Heney ] on Sunday 16 July 2006 19:09 \__
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:25:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>This may seem acceptable for some, but these machines are being hijacked
>>>>and are joined to form botnets. These botnets account for 80% of all the
>>>>SPAM wordwide and the majority of E-mail traffic (yes, the majority
>>>>originates from Windows bots). These machines also attack Web sites,
>>>>including mine. Given that I spend hours of my time every week combatting
>>>>SPAM and attacks launched by Windows machines (I have proof), all of which
>>>>due to severe flaws, can a case be made?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not a chance. Even if class actions were possible in the UK, which
>>> they aren't.
>>>
>>> You would have to show that Microsoft had been negligent in creating
>>> the software with those flaws in.
>>
>>Negligence is a subjective term because there is negligence
>>that serves a anterior motive (as in the recent WGA spyware,
>>which got installed as though it was an important update)
>>and negligence that is due to innocent ignorance.
>
>Nope.
>
>Neither of those are negligence.
>
>Negligence, in law, means more than just simple carelessness. And
>"innocent ignorance" is no more than carelessness.
>
>It can only be negligence if the consequences of failure were (or
>should have been known) *and* the likelihood of failure was (or
>should have been) known.
>
>In this case, the vulnerability was not found by *anyone* for at least
>7 years after the product was released. So it is hard to say they
>*should have* known about it.
>
>
>> It is a
>>known fact that Windows has some back doors and it also
>>comminicates with Microsoft on a daily basis, essentially
>>delivering some key details such as location.
>
>Rubbish.
>
>That is something that paranoid Microsoft haters have speculated
>happens.
>
>There is NO evidence that Windows 98 ever did that.
>
>
>>Whether the
>>design of the O/S was made to accommodate controlled
>>intrusion (which evidently backfired), I don't know. The
>>closed-source development model makes it even harder to
>>back.
>>
>>And speaking of class action, the incidents I mentioned
>>above (Window Genuine 'Advantage') have triggered two such
>>lawsuits in America.
>>
>
>But we don't have them in the UK. The nearest we have is where an
>organisation can take action on behalf of its members.
The class action would be in the US. UK citizens have been part of
class actions in America eg one of thoes big auction houses ( I forget
its name) that fixed prices.
|
|
