Comment Analogies (Score 1) 376
Proof by analogy is fraud.
Proof by anecdote is urban legend.
I find it interesting that nearly every post I have read has made use
of an analogy between guns and dangerous software, and nearly all
seem to consider it a perfect analogy.
A gun is rather difficult to duplicate and/or manufacture.
Software is necessarily trivial to copy.
If you wish to own a gun, you must find seller (easy), spend the money
(easy - hard), comply with / evade the gun restrictions in your area
(easy - very hard). If you want multiple guns, you must repeat this
process for every gun. At some point, the money part starts to add
up.
If you want dangerous software, you just download it. (trivial -
easy). If you want multiple copies of said dangerous software, cp
will do the trick (trivial).
I think dangerous software can become far, far easier to distribute
or obtain than guns. (Guns don't replicate themselves.)
Guns do direct, physical damage.
Software cannot do physical harm so directly ... it needs to be run on
a machine that will cause physical harm as a result of the software
being run. It is worth pointing out that relatively little physical
harm is done by software.
It is difficult to use a gun without being aware of it. Accidents do
happen, but the majority of people who make such mistakes are at
least *aware* that they mis-handled a gun.
It can be much more difficult to be aware of all the software one is
using, however. How many of us can, with a high degree of
certainty, list every piece of software we have used? If you have
made such a list, does it include GNU readline? If bash is your
login shell, you have used GNU readline, as bash includes it.
Unawareness of the user is one of the fundamental principles of virus
design, and *the* principle of Trojan horse design. If some user
downloads a Trojan horse, and it later runs, killing someone, is the
user guilty of murder? of manslaughter? Or is this merely a
terrible accident?
Given the differences between guns and dangerous software, I claim
that drawing analogies between them is highly suspect.
I *do* feel that primary responsibility for damage done should rest
with the user, assuming the user actually knows what he/she is
using. However, I am unwilling to accept arguments to this effect
which are based on the 'guns are like dangerous software' analogy.
I also believe that the idea of 'sole responsibility' is one of the
biggest loads of BS Americans regularly subscribe to... but that is
a topic for another post.
fscking slashdot doesn't know how to preserve decent indenting.
Proof by anecdote is urban legend.
I find it interesting that nearly every post I have read has made use
of an analogy between guns and dangerous software, and nearly all
seem to consider it a perfect analogy.
A gun is rather difficult to duplicate and/or manufacture.
Software is necessarily trivial to copy.
If you wish to own a gun, you must find seller (easy), spend the money
(easy - hard), comply with / evade the gun restrictions in your area
(easy - very hard). If you want multiple guns, you must repeat this
process for every gun. At some point, the money part starts to add
up.
If you want dangerous software, you just download it. (trivial -
easy). If you want multiple copies of said dangerous software, cp
will do the trick (trivial).
I think dangerous software can become far, far easier to distribute
or obtain than guns. (Guns don't replicate themselves.)
Guns do direct, physical damage.
Software cannot do physical harm so directly
a machine that will cause physical harm as a result of the software
being run. It is worth pointing out that relatively little physical
harm is done by software.
It is difficult to use a gun without being aware of it. Accidents do
happen, but the majority of people who make such mistakes are at
least *aware* that they mis-handled a gun.
It can be much more difficult to be aware of all the software one is
using, however. How many of us can, with a high degree of
certainty, list every piece of software we have used? If you have
made such a list, does it include GNU readline? If bash is your
login shell, you have used GNU readline, as bash includes it.
Unawareness of the user is one of the fundamental principles of virus
design, and *the* principle of Trojan horse design. If some user
downloads a Trojan horse, and it later runs, killing someone, is the
user guilty of murder? of manslaughter? Or is this merely a
terrible accident?
Given the differences between guns and dangerous software, I claim
that drawing analogies between them is highly suspect.
I *do* feel that primary responsibility for damage done should rest
with the user, assuming the user actually knows what he/she is
using. However, I am unwilling to accept arguments to this effect
which are based on the 'guns are like dangerous software' analogy.
I also believe that the idea of 'sole responsibility' is one of the
biggest loads of BS Americans regularly subscribe to... but that is
a topic for another post.
fscking slashdot doesn't know how to preserve decent indenting.
