Linked by John O'Sullivan on Tue 7th Oct 2003 18:42 UTC
Microsoft has a little liability problem called Windows. Many are no doubt aware of a would-be class-action lawsuit launched last week in California. The suit targets Microsoft over security problems. The plaintiff is a woman who had her identity stolen. Details are
here. (NYTimes, free registration required)
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well I think we can all agree America is Sue-happy. But I do take take some exception to some of the analogies. For example the 9/11 example.
Yes, its ridiculous to sue the building people. I mean no one has in mind a normal building being built to withstand 2 planes. But there is a case to be made against the airlines. These men were able to
A) carry blades onto the plane
B) hijack the plane
C) enter the cockpit
D) fly the plane into a building
Step C at least is possibly negligence. I'm not saying I think they are responsible, but there is a case to be made. A similar case can be made against cars which are poorly designed to withstand crashes. It is reasonable to expect a certain amount of security in any product.
As to this specific case to MS. The courts will have to decide if MS was negligent in their security. On this I am inclined to side with MS. Enough news has been published to make people aware of virii. MS, whether you agree or not has undertaken security as a priority.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't things like telephones regulated for a certain amount of reliability (at least in canada). If so, perhaps such a model is needed for OS, given that it is such a critical system