4 ms·

> and thats for the user to decide I'm getting a vaccination vibe here. If being slack about security means a botnet infection that the rest of us have to deal

> and thats for the user to decide I'm getting a vaccination vibe here. If being slack about security means a botnet infection that the rest of us have to deal with, then no, not for the user to decide. "My computer my choice" only works if you're not connected to a network and can't infect anyone else.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
I'm fully vaccinated. I would bet the Pur.ism folks are vaccinated, too. Vaccination is a government initiative. Microsoft is a private company. Originaly Windows had no ability to connect to the internet; it was for LANs only. All was well. Gates originally thought the internet made no sense. Then Microsoft added TCP/IP from BSD and people started connecting Windows to the internet. All was not well. Today, Microsoft actually tries to force people to connect to the internet, and stay connected 24/7. They do this with "automatic upgrades/updates". Windows computers will even try to automatically "update" themselves peer-to-peer from other computers on the LAN. Hows that for a virus analogy. Microsoft could never stop botnets targeting Windows proactively so Microsoft became a botnet. They now have remote command and control. The root cause of botnets isn't the victims, it's the product. Its especially difficult to argue otherwise when owners have less and less control over their own computers.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I'm fully vaccinated too (and I'm typing this on a Purism 13, so your estimate is good so far ;) One of the reasons Windows started asserting more and more control over computers is that people are easily duped into doing the wrong thing. I totally agree that Windows was never designed for t'internet, and security was badly bolted on rather than being an integral part from the start. But even if it had been, most of the botnet exploits are social rather than technical. Linux is more secure than Windows, but it is not inherently more proof against social attacks than Windows. However the people who choose to run Linux are more proof against those attacks because we're more knowledgeable about computers, so there are few social attacks that work on Linux. I'm not victim-blaming. I'm saying some people do not understand the environment they are in or the dangers they face and their bad choices can negatively affect other people around them. Just like with vaccines, mandating some behaviour in this situation seems like a reasonable response.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

I'm fully vaccinated. I would bet the Pur.ism folks are vaccinated, too. Vaccination is a government initiative. Microsoft is a private company. Originaly Windows had no ability to connect to the internet; it was for LANs only. All was well. Gates originally thought the internet made no sense. Then Microsoft added TCP/IP from BSD and people started connecting Windows to the internet. All was not well. Today, Microsoft actually tries to force people to connect to the internet, and stay connected 24/7. They do this with "automatic upgrades/updates". Windows computers will even try to automatically "update" themselves peer-to-peer from other computers on the LAN. Hows that for a virus analogy. Microsoft could never stop botnets targeting Windows proactively so Microsoft became a botnet. They now have remote command and control. The root cause of botnets isn't the victims, it's the product. Its especially difficult to argue otherwise when owners have less and less control over their own computers.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I'm fully vaccinated too (and I'm typing this on a Purism 13, so your estimate is good so far ;) One of the reasons Windows started asserting more and more control over computers is that people are easily duped into doing the wrong thing. I totally agree that Windows was never designed for t'internet, and security was badly bolted on rather than being an integral part from the start. But even if it had been, most of the botnet exploits are social rather than technical. Linux is more secure than Windows, but it is not inherently more proof against social attacks than Windows. However the people who choose to run Linux are more proof against those attacks because we're more knowledgeable about computers, so there are few social attacks that work on Linux. I'm not victim-blaming. I'm saying some people do not understand the environment they are in or the dangers they face and their bad choices can negatively affect other people around them. Just like with vaccines, mandating some behaviour in this situation seems like a reasonable response.