3 ms·

I don't dispute that malware is incentivised to look like legitimate traffic. I wanted to respond to your comment about vendors using one endpoint to inhibit f

I don't dispute that malware is incentivised to look like legitimate traffic. I wanted to respond to your comment about vendors using one endpoint to inhibit filtering. They have as much freedom to do this as I do to deny them any internet access if they do. If the product does not operate as advertised in light of this, it will be promptly returned to the retailer. Also, good filtering isn't based on an IP address alone but that's splitting hairs. Yes it is time consuming but I argue privacy isn't free, it must be protected and defended, we all have to find the medium we are happy with.

acdha 12y ago
> If the product does not operate as advertised in light of this, it will be promptly returned to the retailer. I support this in principle but it really needs regulatory reform: it's hard or impossible return opened software or a device when the manufacturer changes their policies a year after you bought it. That latter point is becoming more relevant as we increasingly see computers deeply integrated into expensive devices with long service lifetimes. Just wait until a car manufacturer pushes out one of those combined “security fixes and new terms of service / we collect your personal data” patches and you're faced with living with problems, suing, or clicking Accept and hoping you'll have better options in a few years when you're looking for a new car. > Also, good filtering isn't based on an IP address alone but that's splitting hairs. Yes it is time consuming but I argue privacy isn't free, it must be protected and defended, we all have to find the medium we are happy with. That's a worthy sentiment but I think it's a losing game because at its root it's a social problem. It's going to be a tough battle as long as companies have very limited regulation for collecting personal information, the ability to unilaterally change service terms after purchase with no right to compensation, and – particularly critical – no penalty for security failures except in rare cases where an expensive lawsuit succeeds. (That wouldn't directly affect outright malware but corporate responsibility would increase the incentives to take security more seriously than most companies have in the past)

acdha 12y ago

> If the product does not operate as advertised in light of this, it will be promptly returned to the retailer. I support this in principle but it really needs regulatory reform: it's hard or impossible return opened software or a device when the manufacturer changes their policies a year after you bought it. That latter point is becoming more relevant as we increasingly see computers deeply integrated into expensive devices with long service lifetimes. Just wait until a car manufacturer pushes out one of those combined “security fixes and new terms of service / we collect your personal data” patches and you're faced with living with problems, suing, or clicking Accept and hoping you'll have better options in a few years when you're looking for a new car. > Also, good filtering isn't based on an IP address alone but that's splitting hairs. Yes it is time consuming but I argue privacy isn't free, it must be protected and defended, we all have to find the medium we are happy with. That's a worthy sentiment but I think it's a losing game because at its root it's a social problem. It's going to be a tough battle as long as companies have very limited regulation for collecting personal information, the ability to unilaterally change service terms after purchase with no right to compensation, and – particularly critical – no penalty for security failures except in rare cases where an expensive lawsuit succeeds. (That wouldn't directly affect outright malware but corporate responsibility would increase the incentives to take security more seriously than most companies have in the past)