On December 28, 2004 at 12:23 laird(_at_)lbreyer(_dot_)com (Laird Breyer) wrote:
On Dec 27 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
Well, if one wants to resist the idea one merely builds scenarios out
anything left unsaid which lead to the conclusion that the idea is
untenable.
Generally IMHO, if what is unsaid is large enough to drive a truck
through it's worth narrowing down the unsaid parts.
I guess you've decided you're just always right a priori, must be
nice. Put another way, I'm trying to imagine any circumstance, right
or wrong, your sentence couldn't apply to.
What bothers me here with your approach is that you're not attacking
the spam problem, you're attacking the user apathy problem and
*hoping* that this will somehow solve the spam problem. But there's no
guidance as to what users will or should do if they wake up from their
apathy.
Not really, someone pointed out that a big problem (of charging for
email) would be that virus-infected zombies would be charged.
I said, well, if the charges were adjusted into the right range, a
dollar or two perhaps, they might even motivate people to get their
machines fixed w/o sending them into a murderous rage.
Just looking at a possible positive aspect. Or, more importantly,
pointing out how people draw their examples only to illustrate the
point they want to make. For example, positing a charge for an
infected zombie as being so immense that it converts the average PC
user into Osama bin Laden.
I suspect if someone got a nuisance overcharge, say a dollar or two,
for mail being sent by a virus on their machine they'd become
interested in fixing it both because that's attracted their attention
and who wants to think their computer is under the control of a virus?
I agree with the sentiment, but am not (yet) convinced the underlying
economics support the conclusion you reach. Here's roughly what I think:
1) The majority of users consider fixing their computers on par with
fixing their cars. Necessary, but expensive and too complex to bother
with. The path of least resistance is allowing decay followed by buying a
brand new replacement.
Which, I assume, to continue the analogy, doesn't apply to filling the
tank with gasoline (i.e., they don't abandon the car when the tank's
empty), or perhaps a flat tire, etc.
So if it were in that range.
I did say in that note or another on the same thread that detecting
viral activity and fixing infected PCs has to become simpler and more
automatic (YOU'RE SENDING A LOT OF EMAIL -- YOU'RE PROBABLY INFECTED
-- THIS COULD COST YOU $3.47 -- CLICK [HERE] TO
FIX...bzzzbzzzbzzbzzz...THANK YOU YOU'RE CLEAN HAVE A NICE DAY.)
We're talking about near and likely futures.
It doesn't seem helpful to drag out projections based on the behavior
of owners of 486/50's running Windows 3.1.
I'm talking more about people in some near future, you know, when all
this charging is deployed, who continue to resist upgrading their
computers etc. because they're too cheap or whatever reason. Ok,
they'll get infected, they'll incur nag charges, their choice.
2) A new computer costs a typical user now on the order of $1000, an
ISP charges on the order of $20 per month. Clearly, the computer is
much more valuable than the ISP service.
3) Fixing a computer by either buying a new one, hiring somebody or
getting one of those magical system cleaning programs costs on the
order of $50 minimum, and is a hassle.
4) The ISP charges $3 as a penalty, per month?
Whatever, the charges for e-mail start kicking in.
5) YMMV, but if I was such a user, I'd either laugh off the penalty or
I'd be pissed off at the ISP for finding a gratuitous way to
overcharge me. Gratuitous because my zombified PC runs fine, so I
don't see what needs fixing urgently right this minute. If there are
other available ISPs, I'd switch to another $20/month provider.
In other words, you're nitpicking the example.
Also, the assumption is that that OTHER ISP would treat you the same
(or similarly), so what's the point?
You keep standing up straw men and knocking them over.
Also, as to switching to another ISP, if they don't fix the infection
it's not clear this wouldn't just repeat the problem. I assume these
viruses periodically send their current IP address to the mother ships
even if just to adapt to DHCP contracts.
If the user switches ISPs, he fixes *his* problem, at least
temporarily. The fact that it only shifts the problem around for the
ISP community is not *his* problem.
No, again you miss the point.
The next ISP has the same or equivalent/similar policies. They're
going to find a way to make it a hassle to have an infected PC
connected to their service.
If you don't fix your PC then the next ISP will just treat you more or
less the same, so may as well fix your PC now.
One reason for this is because in this future ISPs, and probably Tier
N-1s, are metering each other and that machine is going to show up as
a high-mail user which might even incur your ISP charges. So why would
any ISP put up with your zombie-infected spam-spewer?
In fact, I think we're rapidly getting there now just because more and
more ISPs have zombie-detectors and narrow (e.g., no email sending) or
even shut-off infected machines' access.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg