A
Adelphia
I believe that this is a legitimate question. If Microsoft Anti-Spyware
detects a spyware element and reports it what does that mean to the user of
the PC? Well it says that the damage may already have been done. The user
unwittingly loaded something that could either immediately, or later, send a
filtered subset of their keystrokes to a location where in-depth analysis
reveals their login id/passwords, account numbers, etc. for the savings
account, checking account, and their business accounts. Am I wrong ???
Detecting something that has possibly already sent your information outside
has marginal value. Please tell me again is this wrong?
Microsoft designed the Windows operating system in a naive academic setting.
They followed on with improved user functionality with little, or no thought
to protection. Microsoft also took a track that caused them to add
functionality to support commercial interests. With various functions our
desktops can be managed, and worse, our activities can be tracked. This was
supposed to "enhance" our experience. Unfortunately, it made things worse
and criminal elements exploited the pathways intended for commercial use.
Microsoft has belatedly begun to try to remedy the problems. I will contend
that programs such as Anti-Spyware are not the answer and are actually
dangerous.
My argument is that Anti-Spyware is being offered to the PC community
at-large. This means that not only the small cadre of knowledgeable users
will try it, but the average PC user will RELY on it. Why, because they are
faced with such an array of programs claiming to protect them and that
confusion forces them back to Microsoft where they believe they will receive
good protection. These other companies are in too many cases "fly-by-night"
crooks who actually exploit trust to infect the PCs where they are used. The
common every-day user simply has no one to rely on except Microsoft as a
"court of last resort" for safety. Microsoft has a duty to protect its
customers. It would not surprise me that, down the road, some wealthy
person, infected with a keylogger, goes to court on that.
So back to the issue. What is the worth of Anti-Spyware and is it actually
dangerous? The argument I am attempting to make is that Microsoft is in a
position of trust (with some suspicion) in the world of PC users. To offer a
security program that does not BLOCK all nasty intrusions, creates a FALSE
SENSE OF SECURITY. It is disingenuous to offer this program and somewhere
within the description then tell the PC user that they may need something
else to get real protection. How many something else's do they need? What
are they? Are they CERTIFIED to perform their claimed function? No one
knows. The poor customers of Microsoft are left on their own once again.
Full circle, nothing accomplished!
Dick
detects a spyware element and reports it what does that mean to the user of
the PC? Well it says that the damage may already have been done. The user
unwittingly loaded something that could either immediately, or later, send a
filtered subset of their keystrokes to a location where in-depth analysis
reveals their login id/passwords, account numbers, etc. for the savings
account, checking account, and their business accounts. Am I wrong ???
Detecting something that has possibly already sent your information outside
has marginal value. Please tell me again is this wrong?
Microsoft designed the Windows operating system in a naive academic setting.
They followed on with improved user functionality with little, or no thought
to protection. Microsoft also took a track that caused them to add
functionality to support commercial interests. With various functions our
desktops can be managed, and worse, our activities can be tracked. This was
supposed to "enhance" our experience. Unfortunately, it made things worse
and criminal elements exploited the pathways intended for commercial use.
Microsoft has belatedly begun to try to remedy the problems. I will contend
that programs such as Anti-Spyware are not the answer and are actually
dangerous.
My argument is that Anti-Spyware is being offered to the PC community
at-large. This means that not only the small cadre of knowledgeable users
will try it, but the average PC user will RELY on it. Why, because they are
faced with such an array of programs claiming to protect them and that
confusion forces them back to Microsoft where they believe they will receive
good protection. These other companies are in too many cases "fly-by-night"
crooks who actually exploit trust to infect the PCs where they are used. The
common every-day user simply has no one to rely on except Microsoft as a
"court of last resort" for safety. Microsoft has a duty to protect its
customers. It would not surprise me that, down the road, some wealthy
person, infected with a keylogger, goes to court on that.
So back to the issue. What is the worth of Anti-Spyware and is it actually
dangerous? The argument I am attempting to make is that Microsoft is in a
position of trust (with some suspicion) in the world of PC users. To offer a
security program that does not BLOCK all nasty intrusions, creates a FALSE
SENSE OF SECURITY. It is disingenuous to offer this program and somewhere
within the description then tell the PC user that they may need something
else to get real protection. How many something else's do they need? What
are they? Are they CERTIFIED to perform their claimed function? No one
knows. The poor customers of Microsoft are left on their own once again.
Full circle, nothing accomplished!
Dick
