Re: Networks are for corporations and offices, right?

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

Robert Holmgren wrote:
> Patricia, may I say that I think your argument (below) is a tad over the top?
> I meant my statement about networking positively -- very. Networking is great,
> and need not expose you to any additional danger.
Actually, as far as I know, I've only "had" a virus
once, and that was just sitting harmlessly on my data
partition, since I never opened it except in a text
editor. But what about all those clueless dweebs? if
we're going to hymn the praises of community and
sharing, oughtn't we be concerned about them?
And, of course, you're right about community. My
response is the knee-jerk reaction of someone who is
far more a loner and an individualist than a Christian
ought to be. And I deeply appreciate the irony of being
reminded of that by "thank god I'm an atheist" Robert.
>  You ask "how much time
> and effort must one spend "securing" one's PCs"? My personal answer is, None.
> I never think about it. I never scan my disks (but when I do, they're clean).
You know, that's right too. It's just that one reads so
much about the epidemic of malware, and the
corporations spending time and $ fighting it, that one
comes to believe it's more of a problem than it
probably is (the corporate suits being, of course,
clueless dweebs).
> Why moreover should there be different kinds of nodes with "unmistakably
> different kinds of addresses"? Parity is a crucial concept of the Internet,
> and I for one like that -- it inhibits a takeover.
Hmm. You mean if there were different kinds of
networking protocols, some VBC could lock people it
didn't like out of a wide range of things? I'll have to
think about that. BUT that may be happening already:
see the recent discussion on Groklaw about "Microsoft's
Calling Home Problem: It's a Matter of Informed
Consent." As the saw has it, just because you're
paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.


--
Patricia M. Godfrey
PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx