Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Microsoft Defender
In hot pursuit of elusive threats: AI-driven behavior-based blocking stops attacks in their tracks
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Burrito" data-source="post: 838769" data-attributes="member: 72439"><p>I agree with much of what you say on this topic and others -- in theory.</p><p></p><p>But you are off base here.</p><p></p><p>You make broad sweeping statements about computer usage and the courts and torts that just have no basis in reality.</p><p></p><p>The owner of the system is NOT always responsible, and in fact is rarely responsible in reality in the case of "pwned" machines. All the computers that are controlled by others (zombie computers) and used for attacks --- can you show me one case where an individual owner was held responsible? You can search and search... but I'll save you the time. You won't find it.</p><p></p><p>Even your child porn example is incorrect. There has already been at least one instance where it was shown that one person placed child porn on another person's computer. And yes, the computer owner was not held responsible. </p><p></p><p>And you speak of torts in a cyber world as if everybody worldwide is within the legal jurisdiction of one system. Of course that is not the case. All great theory. Just not reality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Burrito, post: 838769, member: 72439"] I agree with much of what you say on this topic and others -- in theory. But you are off base here. You make broad sweeping statements about computer usage and the courts and torts that just have no basis in reality. The owner of the system is NOT always responsible, and in fact is rarely responsible in reality in the case of "pwned" machines. All the computers that are controlled by others (zombie computers) and used for attacks --- can you show me one case where an individual owner was held responsible? You can search and search... but I'll save you the time. You won't find it. Even your child porn example is incorrect. There has already been at least one instance where it was shown that one person placed child porn on another person's computer. And yes, the computer owner was not held responsible. And you speak of torts in a cyber world as if everybody worldwide is within the legal jurisdiction of one system. Of course that is not the case. All great theory. Just not reality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top