__/ [ 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. 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. 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.
Best wishes,
Roy
|
|
