Hacker News Reader

In addition to the good concerns about exactly who has the power to run privileged code on your computer, I will also point out that:

A: If you are serious about 'mandating', you just toasted alternative operating systems, and have grotesquely complicated server operators lives, among others; the world is full of more situations than could even begin to be covered by such a policy.

B: What you want won't work anyhow, as your first premise is false: "virus scanners prevent computers from being infected from this stuff". They aren't perfect. Mandating a monoculture of security software simply means that people have to use hacks that work against the current software. (Or a de facto monoculture brought on by a small set of legal choices, or a de facto monoculture brought on by a wide array of choices but one "default" choice. Note that "allowing people to opt out" is simply recreating the current situation, only with a lot more government for no apparent reason.)

Of course, quite a lot of those hacks will involve forging the presence of the software, making it look like the anti-virus is still running when it actually isn't. A task that is very difficult today, you made easy by "mandating" which software it needs to be, which is whatever the gov provides by default.

Even beyond the legitimate concerns expressed by the other posters, your idea is worthless from a security point of view. Security problems go well beyond "not everybody is running a virus scanner", or any other set of defined software, and you would actually make things worse, not better.

Of course you will disagree, because in your head security software is perfect and you can't perceive the massive problems that would result from your suggestion, since you're working with mental ideation primitives that don't correspond to anything that exists in the real world. There isn't much I can do about that, other than point it out.

Perhaps "mandating" is too strong a word. Simply subsidizing or allowing security software to be obtained free would achieve the same effect. I meant "to make into law" when I said "mandate."

When I say "opt out", I simply mean that the security software is freely available, but not forced onto your computer. I'm not proposing some sort of communistic action plan. I'm simply suggesting that if the the government provided security software for free, more people would have access to it, and the effect of viruses on businesses can be curtailed.

> Of course you will disagree, because in your head security software is perfect and you can't perceive the massive problems that would result from your suggestion, since you're working with mental ideation primitives that don't correspond to anything that exists in the real world.

You're absolutely right. My suggestion is predicated upon the idealization of antivirus software. Which is exactly why I started out my suggestion with a question about whether or not virus scans can detect this stuff that cause botnets. And then I followed with an if this is true ... then take my suggestion seriously. I never meant to imply that I know much about the efficacy of a virus scanner. In fact, I use a mac, so my exposure to them has been limited.

I don't know how you got a look inside my head, but you clearly need glasses.

Second of all I think you, and a lot of other people who down-modded me may have jumped to conclusions when I used the words "mandate" and suggested the government do something for the greater good. I'm not suggesting something akin to the communist green dam software. My suggestion is probably less controversial than the healthcare plan, since it would be cheaper to implement. It's more like the government digital converter box subsidy program if anything.

So assuming if everyone had virus scan, would it help? If it doesn't, then why did I waste money on Norton antivirus on my PC? Surely virus scan must be able to do something. Definitions can be easily updated across the installed base to counter the latest zombie virus. If you have evidence that this would all be futile, then I retract all my statements about giving this supposedly useless product out to everyone. You probably know more about virus scanners than I do, and I'm not here to argue with you about their efficacy. So unlike what you thought I wiould do, I am not going to disagree with you about their efficacy.

There are already several free anti-virus software available (avast, clam, etc.) No, they don't catch everything.

How are they compared to commercial ones and can't they at least be used as a vector to deliver the latest antivirus?

Doesn't Windows already come with a virus scanner, provided for free by Microsoft? I don't know for sure, since I only boot XP to play games, but it keeps nagging me about having all their security things enabled.

I'm pretty sure xp doesn't have one. But if windows 7 has one then that would be a nice group who can receive virus definitions to root out botnets right? I mean this potentially larger pool of virus scan enabled computers can be used to push updates to. Otherwise they'll be stuck to blocking out dns right?

The "good guys" tend to not always be good guys when they suddenly have a toy that can scan everything on all the computers in the US.

There are plenty of free virus scanners out there, this isn't a technology problem but a education problem.

Yes but you can voluntarily install a toy that can scan your computers. If you can do that, you can have the government pay for anti-virus software and guarantee security. At the very least you can just have software that will prevent your computer from being turned into zombies.

Obviously such a thing would have to be voluntary. That means you can opt to remove it, or not install it. But the point is to provide it for free, as a free beneficial tool, paid by the collective interest to secure our way of life, and to make it easily available.

Hey we have a military and they have the power to take over the US if they wanted to. Such a thing funded to protect our computers is necessary too, and obviously we don't want to give some people secret control of this powerful tool, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to secure our computers without such a threat.

You are most likely being downmodded for choosing to use catch phrases like "collective interest", "secure our way of life", and "take over the US". These are increasingly becoming phrases that we consider crackpots to use when they want to drum up support, for legit purposes or not.

Yes I agree. Poor choices of words that have certain connotations. Wish I could edit it now because I think a lot of people are missing the point because of it.

There are lots of free anti-virus solutions available. The problem is not availability: it's letting people know that these things exist and then (more importantly) having them actually take preventative action. The second one is difficult though: it's hard enough to even get people to keep their operating systems up to date (remember Conficker?).

Also, the idea of a distributed country-wide virus scanner is terrifying. Who are the 'good guys'? Do you really want them having access to your computer at any time?

That's the main point of a government mandated system. All computers must be sold with one. You have the choice of disabling it of course, but it would be included by default so the computer-illiterate would be protected without further action. They'd also won't become unwilling participants to DDos attacks.

> That's the main point of a government mandated system. All computers must be sold with one.

What govt would resist the obvious temptation?

We have a government mandated military. Most governments do. What keeps them from using it to enforce it's will?

Spying on your citizens and enforcing martial law are two very different things. The US already (illegally) spies on its citizens. Giving it more ways of doing so is not a good idea.

Well then the US does not have to do that then. They could just pay for our free McAfee or Norton... A credit perhaps even to allow us to buy it for free with a new computer.

Then the guys at McAfee or Norton can use this to curtail infections because they now have access to more computers, whereas right now they only have access to those willing to pay for their stuff.

My point was that if we can keep in checks and balances from the military from being abused, we can do the same for national computer security.

And that's happily another reason why it's a terrible idea. Norton and McAfee are terrible virus scanners (Norton especially)

[Citation Needed]

http://www.symantec.com/norton/downloads/trialsoftware/offer...

Free trial. See for yourself.

Why? There are plenty if free and often better systems. And even if the gov funded it why would there be an uptake in use.

Then you have the issue of unmaintained systems. Most machines friends give me to fix already have a virus scanner bt are still infected.

No, as already said this is not a funding problem it is an education one.

I see two main problems with your arguments:

1) Security online is an international problem. One government cannot solve the problem, even it were a good idea.

2) Your arguments comparing this to the military are fundamentally flawed. The US military has its basis in the Constitution, and has been refined by many further laws/acts over the course of US history. That structure is what keeps them in line. No such structure exists for your proposal.

1) I agree. Unfortunately a unified human government is not in the near future, but having one whole country, especially one as well connected as the United States, secure itself can cut into the power of botnets or viruses. The US can also set an example, for other countries to adopt. (This is all assuming that distributing anti-viral software by the gov't can keep up with self-propagating viruses).

2) My point is that such a structure can be created for my proposal too. Simply letting the government contract out to multiple private corporations, or providing subsidies for antiviral software, is one way to prevent "big brother" from controlling computers.

> We have a government mandated military. Most governments do. What keeps them from using it to enforce it's will?

It's a whole lot of work to do so. Govts are lazy. Waging war on their people is hard work, so they tend to avoid it.

"Misusing" equipment or information is easy, so they do it.

Remember "Joe the Plumber"? As soon as he hit the news, various govt flunkies were rummaging through govt databases looking for dirt and releasing it to the press. (And, in at least one case, they either made up stuff or didn't know the law.)

And no, they don't do that as a matter of course whenever someone is on TV.

And yes, Repubs are probably no better. That's why we can't fix these things by voting for different people - we have to take away their toys.