Dave said:
Peronsally I think the manufacturer (D-link) should take responsibility.
At the minute users have not been made aware except via news reports and
posts on newsgroups, but in principle they could be notified.
'Could be' but they still had nothing to do with it.
According to The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/13/d-link_time_row_escelates/
D-link have said they are aware of it and there may be a statement after
Easter.
About time (too good a pun to pass up)
I'm not blaming end users - I think the manufacturer is to blame.
Glad to hear it but your whole argument, after stating 'the problem', has
centered around the end users.
But
end-users are actually using the time servers now. The legal
implications of this in England are far from clear - I have no idea in
another country.
See? After saying you weren't blaming end users you didn't manage even one
more sentence before an implied threat of "legal implications."
In the case of the Danish time-server, it is personally owned by an
individual with an interest in accurate time measurement.
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/
That's nice.
Well, despite claims on sites like the BBC that there is a problem,
there is a distinct lack of denials from D-link, so you might reasonably
assume there is some truth in this.
Might. Might not. Might not know about it. Might wonder why it's 'their
problem'. Might assume a 'business' is always wrong. Might think it's a
matter for the courts. Might notice that there are tons of accusations and
law suits everyday and not everyone is 'right'. Might imagine that if
they're to do something someone will will at least drop a hint. Lot's of
'mights'.
A technically savvy end-user could determine it for him/her self. They
may be able to inspect the firmware downloaded from the D-link site (as
I did) following the suggestion of the Danish time server owner
Or they could look at their firewall logs which should show the
connections.
"Technically savvy end-user" is almost an oxymoron and most people have
enough things on their plate, some of which they actually care about, to
become 'investigators' over a problem they likely don't understand in the
first place even after being supposedly 'told', much less with a muddy story.
Read the "theregister" link you just posted. There's not the slightest
*hint* the end user is even involved, much less any clue whatsoever they
should 'do' something about it. It's all 'd-link is' this or that. "D-Link
is freeloading..."
They'd have hard enough time getting clueless users to understand the
matter if they *asked* for something. What would you expect the odds to be
when they don't?
Well it has hit the BBC in England, which has a reasonable amount of
respect worldwide - although I am the first to admit this article is not
very well written.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4906138.stm
The technical reasons are not that hard to follow.
No need to: "D-Link is now taking action."
Nothing for the end-user to think about.
Besides, if Mr. Poul-Henning Kamp and his gurus "have no way of figuring it
out" then don't expect the end-user to.
I agree the manufacturer should be responsible, but it is not clear (at
least in England) who is legally responsible.
I'm not a court but, so far, nothing you've posted in the way of 'news' has
even hinted the end-user has been asked to do anything and it's my guess
that you suggesting some unspecified number of end-users 'probably heard
about' the problem and should have then jumped to attention, investigated
the matter, somehow figured out if their router is an affected model then
taught themselves about time servers and router firmware, found a
'solution' and then implemented it, all on their own, even though no one
asked them to do anything, is going to be a hard sell.
D-link have offered some money to the owner of the Danish time-server,
but he feels it is insufficient.
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/dlink/
Having had dealing with him before and know how much he has contributed
to the FreeBSD project, I know that the extortion D-link claim would not
be valid.
But the manufacturer really can't do much about units in the field
unless the end-user updates firmware.
To me, the only sensible solution now, given many users will not update
firmware, is for D-link to pay the time-server owners for the increased
bandwidth. Then end users don't have to even update the firmware, as
access to the time servers will be allowed.
How the responsible parties resolve, or not, their dispute is their matter.
I agree they may not be aware (but some will be, as a results of posts
like this).
I was dealing with your claimed point that simply because something the
end-user had no knowledge of, nor decision process in, supposedly creates a
'problem' he knows virtually nothing about, and likely wouldn't fully
understand even if they had heard of it, and for which they haven't been
asked to do a blessed thing even if all the rest were known, then that
constitutes sufficient cause to accuse the end-user of "abuse." I'm saying
it doesn't.
There is not. That is why I used the word "should" in there.
But the point was that the hypothetical you proposed is inappropriate
because no such thing has taken place from either the government *or* the
owner of the time server in question, nor from any news article I've seen
you post.
It is not inconceivable that such a request will follow from one of the
many US government time servers being abused.
Actually, it is because they would, at least first, go after the
manufacturer who created the problem.
Not even the owner of the
Danish time-server has requested it.
Precisely, so it's premature, at best, to start accusing end-users of
'abuse' when none one of any authority has asked them to do a blessed thing.
However, more likely the military will move the names and IP address of
their time-servers, alter all the machines that connect to the time
servers, then send D-link the bill. That could be huge.
Not without first contacting d-link to register the complaint and attempt a
resolution.
If I had shares in D-link at the minute I would sell them!!
No, but here it is a bit different.
Which I said in the very next line.
1) The story has hit numerous newsgroups, websites, including the BBC.
Google has 73,000 hits as I write, but there is no denial from D-link.
I think it would be reasonable to assume there is a problem if places
like the BBC report it, but never report a denial from the company.
There is no denial of this on the D-link web site.
2) I can understand the logic here, but I would not the toaster/coffee
maker one.
If you had waiting to respond till you read the next sentence you'd know
that the end-user 'not understanding' was the point. Especially when the
'news' gives no indication of the affected models, does not ask for
anything to be done, and states "D-Link is now taking action."
I am *not* trying to lay blame on the end users.
Then why are you arguing about end-user 'abuse' and how 'they could find
out', should 'do something', and postulate 'legal implications'?
I feel D-link are to
blame and should pay for their cock-up. If I was an end-user, and it was
not possible to solve it with a firmware upgrade, I'd look at returning
it under a warranty.
The typical end-user won't because no one's even hinted they should/could
do anything, much less asked, there's no clue given as to which models are
affected (in the 'news' anyway) and everything 'works fine' as far as they
can tell.
