Microsoft Wants Internet Tax to Keep PCs Clean

[snurp85]

Basically MS doesnt want to pay for a staff of people to fix known holes in their products. Always trying to save money (more like scam).

 

[Xenophage]

This is an absolutely deplorable article. Who would even consider such a thing?

 

[doc70]

Stupid idea. Hope it never flies.
Let someone else monitor my PC activity? The Hell I will!
I use MY OWN A/V and firewall, don't need some retard to tell me what to use and to tax me for that!

 

[doc70]

And WTF is Trustworthy Computing?
Who comes up with that crap?

 

[micky_lund]

just getting more money off, and there firewalls already suck, so y would this be any different?

 

[Gulli]

aving a real single payer system would mean the government gets to supervise Microsoft (including price controls) and I don't think Microsoft wants that.

Besides: if cancer could be cured/prevented by a few mouse clicks and a free piece of software we wouldn't need health care coverage now would we? So the analogy is pretty dumb.

 

[Regulas]

If some tax and draconian you must use this (spyware) software for your own safety to use the net came into being I would drop the net.

 

[plasmastorm]

Tax my Ar**, spend some money on educating yourself if you cannot avoid dodgy sites and obvious scams / popups -.-

 

[brendano257]

[citation][nom]dman3k[/nom]Not being a M$ fanboy, but the fact that M$ has way less holes than most other major players like Apple, Adobe, Google, and Mozilla is often overlooked.It's just that they have the largest market. Do you really want "security by obscurity" ?[/citation]

This is not entirely true. In terms of actually "hacking" a computer by remote access, Windows exceeds most others. But in terms of likelihood to get a virus, Mac far exceeds Windows. Yes, because not much is written for it because of its smaller market share, but ALSO because it is very hard to have malicious code on a Mac, all programs and such, even the user, are locked out of all essential system files, unless you tinker with Terminal and such.

However, the majority of threats on the internet are NOT remote access hacking done by an individual, but malicious code that waits for idiots to click it on websites, regardless of the OS, a stupid enough user will find a way to get a virus.

As for someone else monitoring my security at a cost, I'll stick to my own security and not pay, kthx.

 

[drwho1]

Wrong, only the user/owner has the right to use/check/access
files on their own computers, NOT ISP's.

And taxing something that each user can do on their own is WRONG.

 

[seriousazn]

[citation][nom]Brother Shrike[/nom]Yeah, make me pay to help the people who have no idea how to use a computer and are infected with 10+ viruses.[/citation]
yea...paying for the lil 10 year olds looking at internet pr0n would piss me off too

 

[frozenlead]

No anti-malware suite will protect the idiotic, ignorant user.

 

[Marco925]

I'd rather have their dollars come to me for fixing their PCs not the government.

I use this money to spend on stuff to keep the economy going 😛

 

[matt87_50]

F$*K THAT!

 

[Guest]

I take care of my own computers and they stay clean.
I also fix computers for other people and I have a reputation for knowing what I am doing with cleaning, fixing and securing computers. If any systems come back to me, it's usually for some minor maintenance and updates.

I don't need anyone looking over my shoulder and making me pay for protection that's not wanted or needed.

 

[DawnTreader]

how about the tax covering the funds to find the people creating the spy/male/virusware and putting them in jail?

 

[belardo]

Uh.... don't we ALREADY pay the Computer tax with the purchase of Microsoft Windows or a PC with MS Windows pre-installed.

Screw you MS!

 

[jsc]

No.

 

[ossie]

New rubbish from redmond... While battling opponents in courts over patents may have worked sometimes, applying the same lawyer tactics to counter hackers is one of the most stupid ideas ever.
Even better, the micro$uxx honcho has another brilliant idea: instead of improving windblow$ resilience (a futile wish), impose a tax on everyone to "fight malware", hoping that an important percentage will be funneled to line up the "chosen" contractor's pockets - guess which one it'll be in mind...

 

[Clintonio]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]This is wrong on so many levels. First and foremost ENOUGH WITH THE TAXES ALREADY! Second, if it were possible to accurately monitor for "sick" computers from the Internet or even ISP level, it would be possible to prevent malware proliferation in the first-place. Unfortunately, such magic code doesn't exist. Third, any system that can be designed to prevent access (quarantine) to the Internet by a "sick" system, can be corrupted or co-opted by malicious actors to do something unintended, and likely far worse. Finally, this Vice President for Trustworthy Computing, at Microsoft, should be immediately fired for incompetence, since he clearly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.[/citation]

Huh? This wouldn't be a tax, it'd be a SUBSCRIPTION. God, what is with you hicks and the word tax?
Two, if it was done on ISP level, it'd need funding. Like, I dunno, a SUBSCRIPTION.
Three; You have no idea how computer works.