Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers

>> What I don't want to see which you are advocating... I don't want to see
>> the end users who do take responsibility, drive well designed vehicles
>> with proper seat belts and safety equipment, stay in their lane, and
>> do not cause accidents held liable for the actions of others. Why should
>> we penalize those that have done no wrong simply because they happen
>> to be a minority?
> I agree, on the other hand, what about those people who genuinely didn't
> do anything wrong, and their computer still got Pwned?


At the very least, if you connected a system to the network and it got Pwned,
you were negligent in your behavior, if not malicious. Negligence is still
wrong, even if not malice.

So, just so we're clear here, I go to Best Buy, I buy a computer, I
bring it home, plug it into my cablemodem, and am instantly Pwned by
the non-updated Windows version on the drive plus the incessant cable
modem scanning, resulting in a bot infection... therefore I am

Do you actually think a judge would find that negligent, or is this
just your own personal definition of negligence? Because I doubt that
a judge, or even an ordinary person, could possibly consider it such.

... JG

One can argue (and I will) that there is indeed some culpability because
the buyer bought the cheapest version of everything and connected it to
a negligent provider's system.

And the average consumer can avoid the culpability in this scenario, how,

"If people place a nice chocky in their mouth, they don't want their cheeks