OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies

[David E. Gervais]

FYI: (and this might shock the **** out of you..) When a 'Gator' dialogue box pops up and asks if you wish to install it [YES] [NO].

Clicking on either answer will promptly install the spy/ad ware. In fact the 'Gator Dialogue' only pops up after it is installed.

nuf said.

Cheers!

Edit: P.S. Here's some more food for thought..

ALL Software companies are ".. not responsible for any damage or loss of data caused by the use of this product.. blah, blah, blah.." Do you agree to these terms? [YES] [NO]

How can someone (Corporation) Design, build and sell a product and claim absolutely no responsibility for it's preformance and or and damage directly caused by it's product?

I think 'Drug Companies' should all list 'Death' as a possible side effect, and then they would be safe from any lawsuits. (It makes as much sense as the software licence.)

..sometimes I can babble too much, just kick me in the head and I'll stop.

[ October 24, 2003, 11:57: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

[Cyrien]

Originally posted by Loser:
Software will always have bugs, always. Requiring that a company put anything more than their reputation on the line is just unfair. Add to that the strange and eldritch ways that certain pieces of software work fine separately but clash together and you're putting Atlas' burden on anyone who wants to make any piece of software. You don't want to take the risk, you don't install the software. Yeah, it's expensive, but the law doesn't guarantee cheap computer services, and I don't think it should.

So... people shouldn't be allowed to post lawsuits against faulty mechanical construction. All mechanical devices will have some faultiness in them i]always[/i]. So if we require say... automobile companies and tire manufacturing companies to put more on the line than just their reputations that would be unfair.

Of course we do. If something goes wrong with your car you can take legal action against those responsible, against either the people that put it in incorrectly or manufactured it in a faulty manner, regardless of your permission to install it you have a right to expect that once installed it will work as advertised without conflicting with something else that you already have, and if it does then you should be informed and asked if you still want to go through with it.
In software it just so happens that the people that "manufacture" it and install it are one in the same in most cases. Does that mean that they shouldn't be held responsible?

No you could argue that in auto and most other mechanical industries a persons physical well being and life could be put at risk so they have to be held to higher standards. However with a computer a persons economic well being can be put at risk. Is this any less important than their physical well being? By holding a company responsible for far more than just its reputation you help to ensure that it will at the very least attempt to prevent these harmfull defects. Will some still get through? Of course. Will as many? NO.

This is the difference between the software industry and automotive and other industries. We don't let them get away with foisting a poorly made product on us and telling us that we are responsible for it. Oh... the engine needs to be replaced one week after you bought it... you can deal with it, it is your problem.

Ok... so patches... we have patches. They can fix many problems that exist when it is released. Imagine that business model with anything else. What? The door doesn't work? Oh ok... we will just pop on a new one that a week later we will learn doesn't let the windows roll down and then we will replace that which will of course cause the windshield wipers to fail...

I wonder how much unreported economic damage is caused due to this BS? I can talk to close friends in multiple different industries and hear stories of thousand, hundred thousand, and even million and multi million dollar business decisions, legal cases, deals, etc failing or almost failing due to software glitches that the companies that produced are not held responsible for.
So Microsofts reputation is hurt... they have a monopoly or near monopoly on several areas. What is your alternative? A secondary software product which your fellows don't support on their system? OH yah... a real alternative. Or maybe a freeware product with no support? That isn't an improvement.

Quite simply the companies due need to be held responsible for their products and not just based on their reputation, just like every other industry that currently exists in the world. If your bank screws up it is their responsibility. If your computer hardware screws up it is their responsibility. If your car screws up it is their responsibility. Not always. After all we make mistakes as well, but so do they and they need to be held accountable for theirs just like we are for ours.

You hit another persons car in an accident and no on is hurt but the cars are totalled. The person you hit has no other means of transportation and can no longer reach their place of work or run other necessary chores, but you are not responsible except for your reputation as a bad driver? No. You and everyone else must be held responsible for their actions and damages that result from them.

Is the computer a different and complicated medium? Yes. Will the rules need to be changed a little? Yes. Must we all be held accountable for our actions in this new medium? Yes.

BC3000AD released totally unworking. The designer (whatever other faults he may have) told the company it wasn't ready to be released. They released it anyways. A lawsuit ensues between the designer and the company for ownership rights with the company just wanting to call it a flop and the designer wanting to get it to work.

Imagine this in any other industry? The car company releases a car that doesn't just work badly it doesn't work at all and they just want to call it a flop and move on with all the people who purchased it left stranded? BS.

Price you say? So we move down to say a video game system. Release one of those and it doesn't work and you still have a *bleep* storm and pubklic accountability. Modern software can cost less than the $150 for a video game system. But it can also cost MORE! So why don't they have the same accountability? Why shouldn't they?

PS: Sorry for the bit of rant in there.

[Thermodyne]

Gator installs software without the expressed permission and consent of the user. This is against the law in many states,

The RIAA is an evil solution, but the industry was left few alternatives. If the current situation continues, there will be little or no music industry left by the end of the decade. People and business have to make a profit; such is what makes to world go round. And the owner of a song or movie or code is entitled to charge for its use. Most bands make very little money as it is, and P2P has already adversely impacted the ability of new Groups to break into the industry. Just look at what has happened to the music industries profits and then graft it to CD-R sales and P2P net use. Do you want new music, or free oldies? That is where we are heading.

Microsoft is a well run company and is at best over aggressive in finding and protecting markets. But current law is sufficient to control them. Personally, I would like to see American industry adopt MS�s management strategies. Very few corporations are looking past the next few dividend checks these days. It should also be noted that MS was able to gain control of many of its smaller competitors with the lure of quick money; so much of the current situation was brought upon the industry by its own greed. I think things will continue as they are for now. And it should be noted that MS is investing more money in its next OS than any American company has ever invested in a new product in the history of America. Now to drop the other shoe, I would like to see product liability law applied to software. Not just MS, but all software. That is the protection that the consumer needs at this time.

Who gives a rats behind about what McD�s sells. You eat there or you don�t, so what. You could package doggy doo and sell it as health food; someone would be stupid enough to buy it.

No, public referendum is an evil perVersion of democracy. It was seen as such by our founding fathers, and more than a few of them warned of it in their writings. Public opinion is far too susceptible to manipulation, and far too small a percentage of the population is capable of having an independent thought or opinion. There is even a smaller percentage that can reason events out in a responsible reasonable fashion. The counter to this has always been delay. The government delays action and waits for public opinion to change; changes were only made if the support for an idea continued to carry a majority over a long period of time. Sure this has been to the displeasure of some, but to swing the other way would end up being to the displeasure of many. An American example would be prohibition. An American experience would be pot and tobacco. On the smaller scale of the question, if it were that way, Toyota would be out of business, their early cars and service sucked. The Vega would have been the end of GM. And Ford would have died with the Mustang II and Fairmont. Every company that dared to bring a new cutting edge technology to market would end up being disbanded. Anyone remember the first cell phones (bricks). Heck, what about the internet and 12k or less dial up. And let�s not forget the crud that passed for color TV back in the day. No, I think it is best left to the open market and the courts as to how long a corporation survives. Think about it, if public opinion ruled, the IRS would be gone long ago. And with it all resemblance to the America as it is today. Electricity would be free; there just wouldn�t be any to be had. Same with food and every thing else. What people want, and what is workable, just don�t often go together.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

ok, seeing as this thread is getting really long Posts and i don't really want to read page and a half Posts, i'll just say that mechanical devices can be built to a standard because mechanics has been around for thousands of years. the principle's are well-known. computers are very, very new and the principle's are still being established. therefore, a company that produces mechanical devices can be expected to make them compatable with standardized tools, while a company that makes computer's cannot. also, a mechanical device with the complexity of the average computer would probable be the size of a football stadium.

apples and pineapples.

[Cyrien]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
ok, seeing as this thread is getting really long Posts and i don't really want to read page and a half Posts, i'll just say that mechanical devices can be built to a standard because mechanics has been around for thousands of years. the principle's are well-known. computers are very, very new and the principle's are still being established. therefore, a company that produces mechanical devices can be expected to make them compatable with standardized tools, while a company that makes computer's cannot. also, a mechanical device with the complexity of the average computer would probable be the size of a football stadium.

apples and pineapples.

It would probably be larger than a football stadium, maybe a continent.

Further the principles of modern mechanical manufacturing have not been around for 1000s of years (you still got that old Roman SUV made in 25BC? So do I) more like 200 or 300 total years, which is still quite abit... except they are constantly evolving and innovating.

The way you make cars today with modern steels and pLastics AND microchips for the internal computers is not very much like what Ford did.

My post wasn't against computer manufacturing, who are still held accountable for the mistakes they make in their machines as are the auto inudstry and other manufacturing industries.
My point was that in all these industries, the automotive, the computer making, the banking, etc... there is always accoutability to the indivual Users for a product that fails. There is not the same level of accountability for software. And there should be. And if you want to go back in time then you can find accountability to the user for defective merchandise even 1000's of years ago. Checkout Hammurabis code. If the house you build for another collapses and kills the owner or son or slave etc... accountability for the job you do for someone else in the oldest written law code.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Loser:
First, DavidG, seatbelts and motorcycle eye-protection are both matters of public safety and work to prevent bodily injury. That hardly compares to ad/spyware.

Second, there's a whole heck of a lot of software built into just about every thing you install. If a software maker wants to take Gator's money and include it in their package they're responsible for that bit of subVersion, and are risking their reputation.

I can't believe you are defending spyware companies?? It is pretty obvious (at least to me) that these companies make an extra effort to get their crap on your computer without your knowing.
The seatbelt law may be a bad example but there are numerous examples of laws to protect the foolish (or at least what you may percieve as foolish)

[Loser]

I loath spyware, who doens't?

But the software company that chose to include Gator in their product should be your target on those 'stealth' installations.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Loser:
I loath spyware, who doens't?

But the software company that chose to include Gator in their product should be your target on those 'stealth' installations.

I believe they are both equally guilty.

[Cyrien]

You should go after both of them. Unless Gator went to those companies and said
"Gee, we will pay you this money to have this program install with yours but you have to make sure that the user knows they are installing it and exactly what it does when it installs with yours."

I doubt that conversation occurred at all, ever. Thus both companies would be on my target list, but Gator would be on top because they produced it. I can target the other company but then Gator will just goto the next one and the next one over and over against and it keeps going. Get the source and it stops, get the symptons and you will be doing it over and over.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

guess i will read this a bit longer.

my point is that computer software can't be held to the same standard becuase it's impossible or nearly so for the maker to understand how it will perform in enough situations; unlike mechanics which is a lot more simple and has been practiced for thousands of years. of course it's not modern mechanics, but that's a lot of background and theory for something a lot more simple.

also, your computer games are unlikely to kill you if they fail. i do think there should be accountability for known bugs that they know they could fix, but how would you determine that? get a court order for another company to fix it, paid for by the first one?