Virus protection and "contributory negligence"

What follows is something I was going to post to newbie@linux-mandrake.com - I put it here instead because I think it raises general issues of computer ethics. The question in question was whether Linux users should install anti-virus software to protect Windows users who may receive infected documents from them [note for Windows users - Linux is immune to almost all viruses, so if you get an infected file from a Linux user, it must have been forwarded from a Windows user].

I may be a penguinista, but one reason I'm a penguinista is that I believe in giving people control over their software (and even hardware - I'd love to see a Free Hardware Foundation whose GPL would require that hardware manufacturers publish complete blueprints of their components and allow anyone to recreate, distribute or modify the component - can't see it happening soon though!). This means that people have the right to choose Windows if they want to. In fact, I even recommended to my mother that she stick with Windows 98 for the time being, since Linux support for her hardware was dodgy and she didn't seem to be having major problems with Windows (I did, however, make sure her anti-virus software was up to date and weaned her from Outlook Express to Netscape).

People might then say that with freedom comes reponsibility - if people choose to use Windows, then they choose to be vulnerable to viruses, and should install good anti-virus software, and be prepared for the inevitable day when a new virus that the software doesn't detect wrecks their system (it nearly happened to me - I thought one of our boxes had got Chernobyled until out hardware techie informed me it was co-incidence - the motherboard just happened to choose that day to blow up, so my pride was saved).

The problem with this attitude is threefold. Firstly, it ignores the fact that only informed choice is real choice, and many computer users are lamentably uninformed. Of course we can argue that they should get informed, but that is because computers are something we use a lot and find interesting. For most people, this isn't the case. An analogous example is my use of cars. I don't like cars, I'm not interested in cars, and I generally think they are Bad Things, but occasionally I have to use one. When this happens and I'm trundling down the road at 35mph or stalling at traffic lights, I would like other drivers to say "Hey, he's probably some old fart who drives once a year - I'll cut him some slack," rather than blow their horns or try to drive me off the road. This leads to the second counter-argument, which is that the "let Windows users get infected" attitude lacks compassion. I know this is not a fashionable concept in our corporate monopoly "free market" world, but I still think that the fact that someone is human makes me want to ensure that they come to as little harm as possible.

Finally, the argument implicitly shifts the blame from the criminal to the victim. It reminds me of the "contributory negligence" argument advance by a senile British judge in a rape trial in the 1980s - the woman was dressed provocatively, she was in a bar, she was singing folk music for God's sake, so she should have known she was going to get raped (I pray that some day someone will mug him and plead contributory negligence on the grounds that the man was well dressed and flagrantly spending large quantities of money).

So, to get back on topic, I would say install anti-virus software (and get the latest SSL!) if you're running a public server. If you're running a limited server, as I do, the best thing is just to refuse to put any Word documents or executable files on it. Co-incidentally, before I got bored and decided to read mail instead of working, I was busy converting Word documents to PDF to upload to this server.

Because the night ...

I was never into punk, despite being a teenager in the 1970s. While my friends were either into punk or disco, I was listening to Hair, Sgt. Pepper and The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. There were a few exceptions, though, one of whom was Patti Smith. Under the influence of my radical lesbian feminist friends, I was forcibly introduced to Easter and Horses and loved them. Like many of my generation, I thrilled to "Because the Night" (actually written by Bruce Springsteen, would you believe it?).

Now I know why. I am definitely not a day person. Sunlight makes me shrink, and the psychic static of random minds makes me want to retreat into my shell. In the night, there is a blissful silence, into which I can insert the thoughts of whoever I choose to read, online or on a page. No one in my vicinity is watching television, arguing, gossiping or copulating. My significant other is asleep or on the town, or sometimes we share the experience. I can at last be myself.

God damn Amerikkka

Being a reserved British gentleman with the cynicism that comes from centuries of Imperialist hypocrisy, I am reluctant to indulge in tirades against any country. Even if I were to start denouncing countires, on any reasonable count there are many countries whose infamy makes America really look like the home of the brave and the land of the free. Nevertheless, if I don't indulge in some yank-bashing soon, I'm going to lose the hot chocolate I so lovingly prepared.

One of the things I enjoy about linux lists is the off-topic posts. Some people find them annoying, but most of the time I'd rather read tirades about free software and right-wing libertarianism than questions about device drivers. One thing I've noticed on recent OT posts is a current of "America, love it or leave it, Muslims are terrorists, capitalism is the only way, Europeans are sissy socialists etc." Not surprisingly, this co-incides with the anniversary of seven-eleven - sorry, nine-eleven.

Like most people around the world, I think that killing lots of people is bad. It's worse when the people you kill are largely not your enemies (in the sense of people actively trying to do you harm). Of course the people who blew up the WTC were not the kind of people you'd want to share a flat with. However, I find it ironic that a society that, despite its riches, will happily allow its own members to die on the streets can now dictate moral standards to the rest of the world. We have the spectacle of Bush claiming that, in as many words, "those who are not with us are against us", a phrase coined by V.I. Lenin (reversing a saying by one J. Christ). We have the possibility of war against Iraq, a country that most Americans could not even find on a map. By the way, in case you've forgotten, war means that people get killed, just like in nine-eleven. No smart bomb is so smart that it can distinguish between a Baathist party activist and a baby (not that many Amerikkkans know what the Baath party is anyway).

Please, Amerikkka, wake up. The world does not need you. The world does not want you.

(probably only entr00pi will understand this)