8th May 2004, 8:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 8th May 2004, 9:38 PM by -iLluSiON-.)
Stop throwing around the words 'blame' and 'fault'. That's not the issue. It's knowing that it COULD BE PREVENTED.
Undertow is the only one that has somewhat understood it at all.
Back to the roles: the victim and the attacker. There are incidents where things could be prevented and there are incidents where they can't be prevented. Knowing that there is a possibility of being a victim and knowing that it is preventable is completley different than not expecting anything at all (and not knowing about it). I think that the general population of people who use computers now know about viruses and worms and know that they can protect their computer from it. It's advertised, displayed in pop-ups, talked about in the news, and even warnings are sent out by email from the large email providers.
So say if John Doe gets a virus but has no protection whatsoever... but he was aware that it could have been prevented and has heard about such programs that will help him. Who's fault is it? The person who made the virus, yes. But, put yourself in Mr. Doe's shoes for one moment. If you were him and you got the virus, but know that you could have had some program or firewall to block it and stop it from happening, would you feel that you were somewhat at fault too? A lot of people fully blame themselves for something happening... which, in most cases, is wrong. But looking at the question, I know you're going to say no... that it's the person who made the damn virus's fault. That's perfectly fine. But when John Doe knows that his computer could be safe, he should be aware that he's somewhat at fault (not the same type of fault because he's not taking part in the other role) and that he could have stopped it from happening.
I guess the rape thing is too much of an issue, and in fact, I don't even want to talk about it anymore. Just recently a person very close to me was raped. That was obviously a bad example because you can't really compare a virus entering a computer and unwanted sex that well.
Moving on, what is the point of living in fear though? I can understand how we shouldn't base our lives off of criminals and people who 'ruin' it and abuse their powers. But, that's how it works. That's how society works. That's part of the reason why religion was created as well (being afraid of death, and committing sins---both negative aspects of life). To put it bluntly, a great deal of humanistic nature is revolved around fear. We adapt to it, accept it, and find a way to prevent it from happening. Yes, we shouldn't base our lives off of these computer criminals, but we somewhat have to. That's how it is and you can't really deny it. It's just about come to the point where computer security is extremely important and widely known and everyone should be aware that their computer is a sitting duck for these 'virii'.
Undertow is the only one that has somewhat understood it at all.
Back to the roles: the victim and the attacker. There are incidents where things could be prevented and there are incidents where they can't be prevented. Knowing that there is a possibility of being a victim and knowing that it is preventable is completley different than not expecting anything at all (and not knowing about it). I think that the general population of people who use computers now know about viruses and worms and know that they can protect their computer from it. It's advertised, displayed in pop-ups, talked about in the news, and even warnings are sent out by email from the large email providers.
So say if John Doe gets a virus but has no protection whatsoever... but he was aware that it could have been prevented and has heard about such programs that will help him. Who's fault is it? The person who made the virus, yes. But, put yourself in Mr. Doe's shoes for one moment. If you were him and you got the virus, but know that you could have had some program or firewall to block it and stop it from happening, would you feel that you were somewhat at fault too? A lot of people fully blame themselves for something happening... which, in most cases, is wrong. But looking at the question, I know you're going to say no... that it's the person who made the damn virus's fault. That's perfectly fine. But when John Doe knows that his computer could be safe, he should be aware that he's somewhat at fault (not the same type of fault because he's not taking part in the other role) and that he could have stopped it from happening.
I guess the rape thing is too much of an issue, and in fact, I don't even want to talk about it anymore. Just recently a person very close to me was raped. That was obviously a bad example because you can't really compare a virus entering a computer and unwanted sex that well.
Moving on, what is the point of living in fear though? I can understand how we shouldn't base our lives off of criminals and people who 'ruin' it and abuse their powers. But, that's how it works. That's how society works. That's part of the reason why religion was created as well (being afraid of death, and committing sins---both negative aspects of life). To put it bluntly, a great deal of humanistic nature is revolved around fear. We adapt to it, accept it, and find a way to prevent it from happening. Yes, we shouldn't base our lives off of these computer criminals, but we somewhat have to. That's how it is and you can't really deny it. It's just about come to the point where computer security is extremely important and widely known and everyone should be aware that their computer is a sitting duck for these 'virii'.