ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Any value in this list ?

2001-08-02 12:00:03
Anthony Atkielski wrote:

Valdis writes:

It's more like blaming the users for failing
to put chocks under the tires because they fail
to realize that just because the stick is in
the PARK position, the car may shift to DRIVE
under some circumstances not under direct
obvious control of the driver (say, if 3 red
pickup trucks in a row drive by).

Someone concerned with safety will _always_ block the tires with chocks.  You
see that done with aircraft all the time.  Of course, people who own and 
operate
aircraft are a lot more concerned with safety than people who own and operate
cars, but the point is that safety is not Someone Else's responsibility, but
yours.

The usual problem with this type of argument is that the consequences of
one's actions are not just borne by the lazy or careless person. In the
case of seat belts or motorcycle helmets, society bears the cost of
caring for invalids. In the case of ill-designed software, everybody
else pays for the traffic (and other effects). Thus, for a truly
free-market libertarian that doesn't just want to privatize the profits
and socialize the costs, there are only a few solutions that seem to
have worked elsewhere:

- make people pay for bandwidth by the bit; in no time flat, people will
either fix up their machines, buy secure operating systems or sue the
makers of insecure operating systems for negligence.

- introduce computer drivers licenses; most societies don't allow
equipment that can cause significant harm to others (personal or
economic) to be operated by laymen (let's ignore guns and the US for a
moment).

- require bonding: operating a computer requires a deposit; actions that
damage somebody else's property lead to forfeiture, just like bonds are
used to hold a home owner harmless if the roofer absconds with half the
roof incomplete (plus many other uses).

- require insurance: same thing, with the insurance premium scaled to
represent the danger caused by a particular device. Pick a secure OS,
pay less money.

All of these are ridiculous, but, unlike the current situation, they
actually attach a cost to irresponsible behavior and, through the court
system, would presumably pass on the incentives to those that can fix
the underlying problems.
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>