RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns

• Previous message: Brian Loe: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• In reply to: Mason Schmitt: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Reply: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: "'Mason Schmitt'" <mason@schmitt.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:06:30 -0500

<this e-mail was filtered to the junk mail box by Outlook - go figure>

> As has been pointed out on this list many times and even in
> this thread, the average home user does not have the
> knowledge or resources to really be responsible for the
> actions of their computers or those using them for their own
> nefarious purposes. This is somewhat akin to the young
> offenders act. You as an adult however, have full knowledge
> of what you do and say and so should definitely be held
> responsible for your own actions. That's the theory anyway.
> Given that people can spill coffee on their lap and then
> successfully sue McDonalds gives me pause... Many people
> seem to think that nothing is their responsibility. :P

Exactly. You may have never seen, used or owned a gun in your life, but you
are probably able to go buy one. Once you do buy one, how it is handled and
what you do with it is YOUR responsibility. The training is widely available
to you, it is YOUR responsibility to get that training. YOU are accountable
for what YOU do with that gun.

Same as your computer.

>
> > The
> > spam, the viruses...you can't prevent me, your customer,
> from being stupid.
>
> Can't stop you from being stupid, but I can certainly do
> something from stopping your stupidity from harming others.

That's where you messed up in your argument in the last e-mail. I'm not
talking about your customers SENDING spam, I'm talking about them RECEIVING
it. Their stupidity, as I'm referring to it, has nothing to do with them
harming others but themselves being harmed.

>
> > Trying to do so only ruins the service for all of us. Now
> MY bandwidth
> > is getting eaten by your good intentions just because my neighbor
> > can't keep his teenager off the porn sites.
> >
>
> Actually, if the ISP is really being fair about it, your
> performance overall may actually be improved. Seriously.
>
> Bandwidth management is becoming a very important part of
> running an ISP. If an ISP wants to provide customers with a
> connection that "feels" fast, they have to get involved -
> caching, rate limiting, filtering, bit caps. If ISPs did
> nothing to manage bandwidth, you wouldn't be as happy with the result.

Of course I wouldn't - they can't provide me the bandwidth they're selling,
not if they had to provide that same bandwidth to all of their customers.
When I started my POP in Warrensburg, MO in 1995 I had a 56k line to my
provider and 10 28.8 customer modems. Think they all had 28.8 bandwidth?!

>
> > PLEASE explain to me how my P2P app is going to affect you
> - my ISP -
> > or my neighbor?
>
> I'm not overly worried about your p2p app anymore and your
> neighbor doesn't have to worry too much about it either.

Now I AM confused!

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

• Previous message: Brian Loe: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• In reply to: Mason Schmitt: "Re: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Reply: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] The home user problem returns"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]