Should Microsoft be held culpable for the construction and support of an environment that enables and encourages the creation and propagation of destructive computer viruses?
My family, for whatever reason, seems to be a magnet for viruses. Things will be chugging along swimmingly, and then all of a sudden my wife will get a bootloader or some other heinous little annoyance, usually - as best I can tell - delivered via Microsoft's proprietary RPC and ActiveX technology. Don't get me wrong, I think to a degree Microsoft has done some fine work in the area of making stuff talk together, though notably their efforts have been more directed towards the fiscal value of a feature than its security (or lack thereof).
While the virus writers of years gone by could do a lot of damage given the resources available then, today's virus writer has a virtual unlimited number of options at their disposal with Microsoft Windows. And of course, they use those tools to wreak untold damage upon the world. But you might be wondering, how can Microsoft possibly be culpable for the actions of these idiots?
Could it be that Microsoft not only provides the technology and opportunity for virus writers to inflict substantial damage, could it also be true that they encourage that activity? Look at it from a dollars and cents point of view; What's the solution when your computer gets so horked up with viruses that it's completely unusable? Well, for most people it's an upgrade. And who benefits from the upgrade? Yeah.. MICROSOFT.
If that wasn't bad enough, Microsoft programming actively discourages the removal of viruses. Install a legitimate extension into Internet Explorer, and if you don't like it or don't need it you can disable or remove it. However, if you somehow get a virus installed in IE and you might as throw in the towel as there aren't many options for resolution other than a complete reinstallation of Windows (or of course an upgrade)!
Why else would Microsoft build Vista with such an aweful feature like "User Access Control" that prevents you from basically USING your machine for much at all? To me, it looks an awful lot like a smoke screen, designed NOT to protect users but to give them a false sense of security that Microsoft is doing something to combat the problem that in all honesty they themselves continue to propagate. No, a security feature that quietly does its job would make me feel a lot better than a program that is shouting at the top of its lungs
"LOOK AT ME, I'M PROTECTING YOU", especially when its form of protection is to basically put child locks on all the programs and then ask a thousand times if I REALLY want to do that.
In the end, virus writers bring in a LOT of money to Microsoft. With that in mind, wouldn't you think that someone inside that organization would be actively pursuing a means to subsidize that cash cow?
Like I said, an interesting thought...
