Jon’s Network

I’m sure you have heard about Julie Amero, the poor substitute teacher that was convicted of harming some minors by intentionally showing them pornography.  You can read the Jan 6 report here.  First of all, even if she did do that, I don’t think a prison sentence is going to curb her interest in porn.  Just fire her, keep her out of the schools, and let her get a more appropriate job for herself.  But if what I’ve read is true, the machine was running Windows 95, with no malware protections installed.  The school didn’t have any web filtering installed to even try to avoid this.  I’m sad for this lady because now the State will steal part of her life (up to 40 years) and ruin her ability to earn a living in her chosen field.  I hope they can appeal and get it reversed.

This makes me wonder if our technology has advanced too fast for our case law.  The prosecution won partly by showing evidence that Amero clicked on links to some porn sites.  Basically, it was a screenshot highlighting links that had changed color indicating the site had been visited.  I think the tech community agrees that she was a victim of a combination of disguised links, javascript and spyware. 

OK, so let’s assume this was spyware.  Who was encroaching?  Who forced the children to see the ads?  Who is responsible?  It can be any of three parties in my view: the school administration, the spyware advertisement networks, or the company that created the OS and browser, in this case, Microsoft. 

Some would consider the school to be responsible, since it was their unpatched, dilapidated, malware infested computer that created the environment for this situation. Are schools held responsible if gun-wielding criminals enter schools and harm students?  If yes, than I think a case could be made against the administration for not maintaining a safe computing environment. 

I think the strongest case could be made against the spyware ad-networks that encroach on users by surreptitiously installing programs on their computers.  How could they be held accountable?  Ben Edelman has some interesting research on these ad networks which points to a solution.  It turns out that the company actually serving the ad is usually far removed from the porn site paying for the ad placement.  The spyware company doesn’t really know what ad they are serving.  This is why porn ads pop up that seem unrelated to the sites that are visited. If you hold the last link in the chain of adware/spyware companies accountable, they would be motivated to enact and enforce a more ethical ad-serving policy (if that is possible, considering they installed the spyware).  This makes the most sense to me. 

Of course, it would be better if consumers could keep this crap off their computer, but that isn’t likely to happen since they obviously don’t have the skills to do that.  They need a system that is inherently immune to spyware, which leads me to the other way of trying to stop this spyware mess.  According to Computerworld, Bruce Schneier wants to make software companies liable for holes in their code.  This would give them a financial incentive to make more secure software, similar to how credit card companies are liable for fraudulent transaction, since they - not the card-holders, are one of the parties in the transaction.  I’m not sure I like Mr. Schneier’s idea.  It means more state regulation, which leads to higher costs and malinvestment.  Microsoft doesn’t force anyone to use it’s software, so how can they be responsible for actions of the spyware companies?  Holding them accountable for spyware infestation would be like holding building contractors liable for any burglaries in any projects they built.  I think individuals should be free to buy the level of security they want, since they best know how much they need.  Consumers that demand more security can spend more money on it, which will lead to better solutions for them. 

Since it is the spyware companies who are encroaching, they should be held accountable, not consumers, like poor Julie Amero.  Spyware companies should be prosecuted for trespassing and, if they are serving porn to minors, I’m sure there are more fitting charges for them.

Any lawyers or economists out there that can or have analyzed this?

via Vitalsecurity.org