[sirl1on]

> I haven't seen a more blatant exposure/confirmation of the deep-seated authoritarian control-freak mindset that has permeated the whole computing industry.

Can I use this as a testimonial? Chill... at least if you want me to discuss this further.

> Yes, back then it was common and expected that users were responsible for their own decisions.

You do not chose and decide to be victim of a scam. At least I presume the "if you wouldn't have downloaded hacker stuff from weird websites you wouldn't have caught malware" was as wrong back then as it is now and is just shifting the blame to the user.

[ta1243]

If you drive a car down a railway track is it your fault or the sat nav's fault for saying "turn left"

We expect certain minimum skill in operating equipment

Now open an email and have it silently install exploiting a bug in your mail client/browser/network stack, that's one thing. That wasn't this though, this was some software which did exactly what it said on the tin.

[sirl1on]

So, Back Orifice wasn't hidden in other executables, but passed on by making people download and install it in all awareness?

Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me instead attacking me like OP :/

[vasdae]

>You do not chose and decide to be victim of a scam.

You should not be operating a computing device if you don't know how to use it. This was true back then and it continues to be true now.

[flumpcakes]

I find this an incomprehensible position. I've used computers 25 years. I've worked professionally with them for 10+ years. I know more about the runtime and workings of a computer than any of the architects, tech leads, or principal engineers at my company. I don't know how a computing device works fully. 99% of people working in 'tech' don't. So 99% of the professionals aren't to this standard, and we expect end users to be?

What percentage of car drivers are fully qualified vehicle inspectors?

Do you know how to fully use your phone? Would you be aware if pegasus spyware was installed?