I mentioned near the end of last night meet about some weird spam.<br><br>THIS:<br><br><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139999/search_google_click_to_massive_malware_attacks.html">http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139999/search_google_click_to_massive_malware_attacks.html
</a><br><br><br>May explain more details. suffice to say that if spun right Linux can profit from their malice.<br><br>All I can say in my proper person so to speak is that were such effort spent on legit ends they'd be in the top 50 instead of risking 50 years. I can understand temptations but this now is an unarguable predicate malice. Damned if all I can see our kids learning from this is a distortion of sanity. "Download a song and you are presumed guilty with no appeal beyond counter suit.
<br>Kick your way into a small town store-steal a day's receipts and a good lawyer beats it for you .<br>STEAL literally millions and cause more millions in collateral damages instead as that's SAFE"<br>THAT warped mindset is ALREADY FREAKING HERE if you read the news.
<br>A disconnect where premeditated crime is ok and innocence is no defense.<br><br>Linux offers a mitigation.<br>As raising the bar of effort to commit certain crimes adds to the degree of premeditation.<br>An increased degree of premeditation makes proof of witting criminal intent more explicit.
<br><br>It's akin to a zippered bank bag having a key lock on the zipper. Yes, a thief CAN "slit the bag" but that shows both tangible proof and overt bad action all at once.. Annd if that locked zipped bag were behind a wooden door locked with a key-in knob lock? damned few thieves will"pick" such a lock bump keys etc aside- they just use the DocMartens key and kick it open. Inelegant but effective. Then they slit open that bank bag they found in the drawer under the cash register.
<br>A stack of overt bad acts rather hard to profess innocence after the fact .<br>It makes the lawyer defending you work much harder to explain that many stacked overt acts.<br>Yet our perp knows enough money will protect them despite quite real guilt.
<br>Let's call that perp."Boots" AND HOW MUCH $ for Boots? <br>Minus lawyer$ but including the crimes they never get caught for.?<br><br>Another perp does the malware trip- Let's call that one "Keys"
<br>Keys does not have the worries of Boots. And why?<br>Who here can overview HOW a malware con gets Keys paid.<br> And how much?<br>Then a cost estimate on collateral damages from Keys doing the game <br><br>After those snapshots let's consider the relative cost of switching from MS to Linux
<br>Vs a steel door,Good quality safe, and making bank drops nightly. <br>The last point being where the MS/ Linux mindset gap lives. <br><br>All that goes to show cause for considering at minimum a rethinking of exploitable software being acceptable. As when enough of us are running software that's harder to exploit?
<br><br>Keys will reconsider a last phishing trip to buy a set of DocMartens.<br>