I worked with systems ‘used by The Government’. They were secure! Even from those trying to use them.
I don’t blame Microsoft! They had help. Hence the ‘et al’ appended to the culprits identity. I just don’t have the insight of a Royal Commission or Grand Jury or FBI Special Investigator to Name all of the related parties.
When attributing blame or having contributed to an outcome, whether it was by a deliberate and conscious act or just an unintended consequence - Ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps you don’t know what you can’t foresee if you choose to look in another direction.
Consumer law is meant to help us remedy situations arising from large powerful corporates choosing not to look or worse deliberately look the other way. I see many parallels between what may evolve around legal liability and corporate avoidance of ensuring they delivered security to our online world, the harm it has and will cause to many of us in the future, and how the James Hardy asbestos products saga has played out to date.
We are still living and dealing with the fall out from the later. Are we adequately in control of the former? I suspect not hence my comments that what we say here needs to add to our consumer outcomes.
I can reminisce about mentally converting a LODZ r1 to its binary or hex or octal equivalent. It might make me feel young again and sound like some expert. I’m really just another dumb consumer who sees a moral and real threat that we should not have to carry the burden of weak consumer law, or lack of political resolve. Choice is now much more than an independent review organisation. It does have a profile and a clear presence in the community.
Ignorance is always the first excuse!
“I’m shocked, shocked to find there’s gambling in these premises.”
“Your winnings, Capitaine.”
More broadly, lacking clear laws companies will do what they can get away with in pursuit of the profit motive - as they are expected to do by corporate law! Similarly, they do not have morals - unless as a point of difference/marketing opportunity. Companies are not allowed to do anything that reduces returns to the shareholders, and I suggest that this is the problem you should be railing about.
Corporate law beats consumer law pretty much every time, with every small consumer win seemingly offset by a major loss. We live in a society that worships money, and those who have it, and ignore what hand luck played in getting them there. Our politicians have their hands tied, because one wrong move and there could be a massive sell-off of our currency - or share markets! I am currently reading False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, by John Grey - and he puts forward a very convincing argument that governments can do very little to ‘manage’ economies without having the huge investment community ‘on side’. This was in 1998 - things have not improved since then.
I reckon things are probably running precisely to plan no improvement needed …
Ah yes. Programming Fortran on these punch cards at uni early 70’s.
1 week batch turn-around if lucky. When busy, 2-3 weeks; only to find I had made a coding mistake. Sift through the tractor print out to find the error, replace the faulty line of code with a new card. Wait… repeat cycle until program ran.
Operators all had to wear white lab coats.