Thursday, September 1, 2011

A Proposal to Expand the Scope of the Death Penalty.... include the creators and disseminators of malware, spyware and trojan virus programs.

Took me 4 days to get back online.



Lurking Apple said...

While I'm dubious about the death penalty for various reasons, I agree very strongly with the proposal of harsh penalties for malware writers. Malware is a strict crime with little to no grey area: it's impossible to write malware by accident, and there's no "my children needed the food" excuse like there is for stealing. Making malware generally requires deliberate intent to fuck someone else over for personal gain. Punish this.

Anonymous said...

Removing the hands (or at minimum, thumb and forefinger) is both apropos and makes it harder for them to commit future such crimes.

Anonymous said...

How about a Public flicking of the testicles.
2X(number of viruses disseminated) flicks to the right testicle. and some sort of miniature whip to the left testicle.

death for any crime doesn't lead to understanding and then treatment and prevention of the cause.

Kill All Thieves- works on an individual basis to stop that person stealing but it does nothing to understand or alleviate poverty .

That Damn Libertarian said...

Agreed. Below I've copied/pasted a recent Facebook update.

Tim Lebsack
Pro death penalty for thugs and killers. Considering the implications of adding to this list malware code writers.
Like · · August 2 at 9:05am

Corey Hardenburg and John Eli Shuey like this.
John Eli Shuey Yeah... I am getting a lot of emails from you lately. (Including your Meetup account.)
August 2 at 9:44am · Like

Anonymous said...

You won't have to worry about this ever happening again
by using a Linux-based operating system. I recommend Linux Mint ( You can even try it out without installing it to see if you like it. MarkyMark and others have written positive articles about Linux. If you have questions you can contact me at dgh2009atcooltoaddotcom.

Anonymous said...

If you are a tech geek or IT professional then Linux is great. However, If you want the security & stability of Unix but with an interface usable by mere mortals, running on well-designed high-quality hardware, get a Mac.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with second anonymous.

Macs are anything but well-designed, high-quality.

Macs use EXACTLY the same hardware as PCs now, but you pay about 2-3x as much for the luxury of feeling like a snob.

Macs crash and have problems all the time, especially newer ones.

In hacking contests, Macs usually fold first:, Windows lasts longer, but Linux always wins.

And I quote from another article:Earlier, Miller said that he chose to hack the Mac because he thought it would be easiest target. Vista hacker Macaulay didn't dispute that assertion: "I think it might be," he said.

Macs seem more stable because less people use them, so less malicious code is written for them. Would a terrorist do more damage flying into a skyscraper, or a barn?

Linux mint is super easy to use and is very fast.

weka said...

Hang, draw and quartering is too good for them. But them in an umu.

Alive. Feed the rendered protein to dogs, or other lower life forms, such as politicians and lawyers :-)

Daniel L. Taylor said...

Third Anonymous has no idea what he's talking about. I doubt he has ever touched a Mac.

It's not about the hardware, which is mostly the same but clearly different in some areas (i.e. unibody construction; glass trackpads). No, it's about the OS. Macs do not crash or have problems all the time. Mac OS X is a remarkably stable, secure, fast, and easy to use OS. I see this clearly at my client's offices where all three systems are well represented.

The assertion that it's the easiest to hack is laughable. So Apple lost one contest whereby a new exploit that all OSes were vulnerable to happened to be figured out first on the Mac? Big deal. I write software for and deal with security on all 3 systems and I can tell you right now Windows is stupid simple to hack, exploit, and take control of. This is because user level code can access any part of the OS, overwrite any system file or DLL, change any registry setting, and easily bypass any security feature including the "Do you want to do this?" dialogs that pop up constantly. There's simply no distinction between user and system level code on Windows. This also means that if you find an exploit in a 3rd party application, you can access any part of the system.

It is, by comparison, very difficult to access restricted areas of Mac OS X or Linux. And Apple in particular is taking further steps to improve the access restrictions already in place. Example: if you find an exploit in Safari today it won't do you any good because Safari is so completely sand boxed that you can't do a thing other than maybe redirect the user to another URL or crash that one process. If the user simply restarts Safari your attack is brought to an end. Contrast this with Windows were an exploit in IE can quickly lead to an impossible to remove rootkit that controls everything on the system.

It is for that reason, and not "popularity", that there is very little malware for Mac or Linux, and the malware which does exist depends on social engineering, i.e. confusing users into giving admin level access to the malware. Apple is very popular with millions of users and is a huge target for malware authors. But finding the occasional exploit that Apple squashes in days is a far cry from picking and choosing among thousands of exploits which Microsoft has no hope of fixing due to issues of backwards compatibility. The registry and DLL architecture are both treasure chests for malware authors, and Microsoft can't fix either without breaking just about all existing software.

Second Anon is right. If you're comfortable configuring and maintaining Linux, it's a great way to go. If not, get a Mac.

micsfoc said...

I think the people who create computer viruses are the same ones who sell the anti virus software.

Anonymous said...

I'm the Anonymous poster who first suggesting Linux Mint (on 9/1/2011 at 1:25PM)

Why is it every time someone suggests alternatives to Windows it always turns into a holy war? I think it hurts more than it helps, quite frankly.

If you want to keep your costs to a minimum by
using a free O/S and by keeping your current hardware, try Linux Mint.

If you don't mind shelling out cash for new Mac hardware and software, buy a Mac.

I've used both and they are both great choices. Either is better than using Windows.

Traveller said...

Make more attention, make backups and stuff, use alternate PC for dubious sites and you are ok.

You are trusting the government to defend you. ROTFL and you call yourself a libertarian?

Start asking something and someone else will get from where you finished, until no end.

How much time will pass before the death penalty would be extended to game creators? After all, a lot of religious fanatics and parents hate when they see children happy playing with the PC.

Death for webmasters of porn sites! And metal music mp3 downloaders! (metal music you know is the language of satan and furthermore encourges to smoke weed, another thing to eradicate with the death penalty).

Death for lascivious movies watchers, where there are miniskirts and disco clubs!

Keoni Galt said...

You are trusting the government to defend you. ROTFL and you call yourself a libertarian?

It never fails to amaze me at how many people take sarcasm and hyperbole seriously on teh interwebz.

Aaron said...

I'm using Windows Me and I haven't had a virus in, well, EVER!

Security through obscurity works!

My computer is an impenetrable wall to viruses. By virtue of having very limited networking capabilities, modern viruses are befuddled by such primitive code.