5 ms·

I didn't see a compelling argument for why they should be publicized in the article.

wmt 12y ago
Unfortunately Schneier first guesses that in reality nobody came out because they didn't have the full picture, instead of the reasons the companies actually gave, and then he goes on about how the reason he is guessing to be the real reason is not a good reason.
- fulafel 12y ago
  Lack of full picture is a consequence of the AV companies' given reason of customer confidentiality. Unless they had closed circle of sharing the info and analysis with each other, in which case keeping it all quiet is even more more damning... Psychologists will tell you that you shouldn't put too much faith in what people tell you about their reasons. Both because people are bad at introspection and/or try to put a spin on things, and because for most things a single reason doesn't even exist. (See also "Why did you buy product X", a question subject to much study).
higherpurpose 12y ago
You mean other than the obvious "trust" benefit? If "anti-virus" companies don't want to protect you against "certain" viruses for political reasons, why bother trusting them and buying their product?
- wfunction 12y ago
  What would your alternative be? Not buying their products?
  - josteink 12y ago
    Yes. If the security product you're buying isn't providing you with security, what are you paying for?
  - kodr 12y ago
    if the free alternatives protect you equally fine, yes.
    - drivingmenuts 12y ago
      > if the free alternatives protect you equally fine, yes. Well, that's a Catch-22 and a half if there ever was one. Absence of detection doesn't mean absence of malware, it just means you haven't found out how badly you've been infected. The paid-for guys are halfways in the pockets of people who've paid more and the free guys are lagging behind.
- Illniyar 12y ago
  They did protect against it (from what I understood), they just didn't make public the existence of the virus. Frankly, I'm not sure how many of their clients (being one myself) care if they publicize anything, as long as they protect against it.

wmt 12y ago

Unfortunately Schneier first guesses that in reality nobody came out because they didn't have the full picture, instead of the reasons the companies actually gave, and then he goes on about how the reason he is guessing to be the real reason is not a good reason.

fulafel 12y ago
Lack of full picture is a consequence of the AV companies' given reason of customer confidentiality. Unless they had closed circle of sharing the info and analysis with each other, in which case keeping it all quiet is even more more damning... Psychologists will tell you that you shouldn't put too much faith in what people tell you about their reasons. Both because people are bad at introspection and/or try to put a spin on things, and because for most things a single reason doesn't even exist. (See also "Why did you buy product X", a question subject to much study).

higherpurpose 12y ago

You mean other than the obvious "trust" benefit? If "anti-virus" companies don't want to protect you against "certain" viruses for political reasons, why bother trusting them and buying their product?

wfunction 12y ago
What would your alternative be? Not buying their products?
- josteink 12y ago
  Yes. If the security product you're buying isn't providing you with security, what are you paying for?
- kodr 12y ago
  if the free alternatives protect you equally fine, yes.
  - drivingmenuts 12y ago
    > if the free alternatives protect you equally fine, yes. Well, that's a Catch-22 and a half if there ever was one. Absence of detection doesn't mean absence of malware, it just means you haven't found out how badly you've been infected. The paid-for guys are halfways in the pockets of people who've paid more and the free guys are lagging behind.
Illniyar 12y ago
They did protect against it (from what I understood), they just didn't make public the existence of the virus. Frankly, I'm not sure how many of their clients (being one myself) care if they publicize anything, as long as they protect against it.