Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers

[jcdill.lists at gmail.com (JC Dill)]

J. Oquendo wrote:
> More finger pointing here. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I'm pointing fingers at the company 
that has a long history of selling software with shoddy security 
(including releasing newer versions with restored vulnerabilities that 
were found and "fixed" years earlier), and then passing the buck on 
fixing the issues it causes by hiding behind their EULA.  Their EULA 
protects Microsoft from their own customers, but it does NOT protect 
Microsoft from the effects the damage causes on OTHERS who are not 
parties to the EULA.  This is where "attractive nuisance" comes in.
>
> ISP's don't "have to" handle the problem, they SHOULD handle the problem.
>   

This whole thread is about ISPs not handling the problem and allowing 
the problem to affect others beyond the ISP.  In this case we could 
claim the ISP is also allowing an attractive nuisance to damage others 
and hold that ISP responsible for the damage that extends outside their 
network.  However, we don't need a legal framework to solve THAT problem 
- we can address it with appropriate network blocks etc.  (UDP-style)

jc