Should Software Providers Be Responsible For Viruses Or Security Breaks?

from the two-sides... dept

I've been hearing more and more people say that companies like Microsoft should be held liable for their crappy software. The fact that their security sucks and it's easy to create crippling viruses for Microsoft should make Microsoft responsible for providing a fix. David Coursey tries to argue the other side of this coin in his latest column. He makes the analogy that this is the equivalent of blaming the people who built your house if someone breaks in and shoots you. You can only make a system so secure - and the real blame lies on the people who broke in, wrote the virus, etc. There are some good points in there, and I might agree a bit more if most people were forced to live in insecure houses built by a single company who did as much as possible to make sure you had no choice in who built your house. Yes, ultimately, the hackers or virus writers or whoever who did bad things to your system deserve the ultimate blame. But, Microsoft still has a responsibility to build software that is as secure as they imply it is to their customers.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Lee, 5 Feb 2002 @ 7:06am

    defective locks

    Suppose the person who built your home installed door locks that were defective across the model line. The builder knew about the bad locks and in fact installed the same model of locks on every structure they built.

    Of course home owners could always choose a different builder, or install reliable locks, but they paid for good locks in the first place.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Perpetual Newbie, 5 Feb 2002 @ 8:15am

    merchantability

    The warranty of merchantability shouldn't be disclaimable. This warranty is the common law belief that if someone is selling you a product for commercial gain, the product had better work as advertised. If a product has fundamental design errors that could lead to disaster, it should be recalled and fixed by the vendor. Liability should only come into play when the vendor is malicious in ignoring or trying to hide the issue.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    okay great, 5 Feb 2002 @ 1:18pm

    Re: merchantability

    what ever MS sucks, lets get over it

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.