J. Oquendo wrote:
More finger pointing here.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm pointing fingers at the company that has a long history of selling software with shoddy security (including releasing newer versions with restored vulnerabilities that were found and "fixed" years earlier), and then passing the buck on fixing the issues it causes by hiding behind their EULA. Their EULA protects Microsoft from their own customers, but it does NOT protect Microsoft from the effects the damage causes on OTHERS who are not parties to the EULA. This is where "attractive nuisance" comes in.
ISP's don't "have to" handle the problem, they SHOULD handle the problem.
This whole thread is about ISPs not handling the problem and allowing the problem to affect others beyond the ISP. In this case we could claim the ISP is also allowing an attractive nuisance to damage others and hold that ISP responsible for the damage that extends outside their network. However, we don't need a legal framework to solve THAT problem - we can address it with appropriate network blocks etc. (UDP-style) jc