Several people have replied to the tone of your email. Let me reply with a bit of somewhat-technical commentary. In their defense, Microsoft has taken a pretty strong approach to software quality over the past decade plus. Frankly, poor software quality has hurt them. It is in their interest to fix it for several reasons, not just this one. That is perhaps one of the best arguments for their current campaign to move their users from Windows XP-and-older to their latest operating systems - it reduces their support costs and improves the quality of their brand. You may be interested in the outcome of a research project run by Stefan Savage of UCSD. In 2007, he broke into the Storm Botnet, and learned a bit about it, which he published in a paper in 2009. In 2010, he put a small quantum of money on a disposable credit card and started responding to spam (“yes, please sell me your little blue pills”), and published a paper about that in 2011. That enabled him to follow the money flow - fourth level attribution, if you will. His work came to the attention of US DOJ, which is now recommending it as an approach to investigating spam-related crime, and to the Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit, which has been using legal proceedings against the folks who pay botmasters for their craft, with deadly effectiveness. I think it’s fair to say, from Microsoft’s actions, that they agree that getting their old software off the net would be a good thing. They want their customers to upgrade to their new-and-presumably-improved software, and are proactively dealing with the business side of spam. On May 18, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Eric Dynamic <ecsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail