Re: [tlug] System security and public policy [was: Anyone seen this gizmo yet?]

["Joshua B." <juggins@example.com>]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull<stephen@example.com> wrote:
> Edward Middleton writes:
>
>  > My preference would be to go the other way.  Make willfully ignorant
>  > users liable for damage caused by their computer usage,
>
> They already are.  The problem is that it's too expensive to follow
> up.  What are you going to do, sue 1 million members of a botnet and
> prove for each one that DDoS packets from their machine caused $10 of
> damage (eg, lost business on your website), and request $10 million of
> damages split 1 million ways?

Oooh I like this idea.  Pity I'm out of law school already. This
reverse class action would
have made a juicy "modest proposal" type essay topic. Penetrate the
consumer's veil
sue all the smokers for a $25 once in a life time contribution to
health care costs,  sue all
drivers for traffic accidents, sue every McDonalds customer for
littering... My little
litigator's mouth is watering. Too hard to collect?  Nonsense, we
collect taxes every year, just
add a new "class liability" section to each return.  Or slip it in to
estate tax. Every inheritor
will have to prove their dearly departed ancestor was a tea-totalling,
bicycle riding, non-smoker
who never ever connected his net-bsd box to the internet (and only ever used it
for video editing anyways) before they can cash out.

Sigh.