Should Unsafe Users Be Quarantined? - Comments Page 1

In re to the following sentence Bob published...
"So I don't think it's unreasonable for them to put up a big STOP sign on someone's screen if they know it's happening. In the vast majority of cases, the user could download a free malware scanner, zap the bad stuff, and be back online in 15 minutes." I would ask "How are you going to search for and download anything if you have been stopped and quarantined from the internet?"

EDITOR'S NOTE: Read the article again... the answer is there!

Yes Quarntining an infected Computer is a very good idea, as long as the ISP would notify the account owner that a problem existed, and provide information that would help the customer fix the problem.

Because I try to keep my computer safe, I would most certainly appreciate a quarantine being imposed unsafe users!

I can see the potential for abuse here. Could some large corporation whose (name might sound like Microsoft) use this as a means to selling more anti-ware? I remember going through a load of crap, including hysterical red screens screaming that my computer was infected and that I needed to get the latest anti-ware. It nearly drove me nuts -- until somebody clued me in to Linux.

Great article. I agree that computers should be monitored for malware and should be disconnected from the internet if they cannot be cleaned or will not be cleaned.
But what do you do about users that keep "blowing up" their machines. I have a friend that seems to be able to mess up a machine in a matter of minutes. It sometimes takes me several hours to repair her damage. (I just got her an external drive and will image her machine when it is clean.) She never knows what she did, and cannot explain it in accurate terms. No one else in the household is terribly literate about computers either. I may have to resort to having her take it to a shop for repairs next time.

Unsafe motor vehicles, unvaccinated humans and infected computers all have one thing in common: a human being that doesn't give a **** about others. And I don't want to hear about someone not knowing his computer is infected. How hard is it to use one, or several, of the many free tools available to scan a machine? Not doing so is just plain irresponsible.

What concerns me more is who will be monitoring the ISPs to make sure they're really scanning for malware? Our government? Call me paranoid but there' too much government intrusion as it is.

I'm absolutely in favor of the quarantine idea. It's long, long overdue. Most infected computers got that way through the owner's laziness/indifference.
Bring it on!

No. We have enough Nanny-Government regulations now. Allow the community / users police and remedy bad behavior. Yes, risks are involved, but that's the price of freedom.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm not saying the govt has to be involved. The ISPs should have a vested interest in doing this, just to cut the enormous load that spam puts on them.

Generally I think it's a good idea. I suspect the vast majority of SPAM comes from infected machines and the owner doesn't even know it. Quarantine them and notify the user of the infection. Put in place a web site where a machine can be scanned for things like being up to date on patches, have up to date antivirus software and perhaps even do a malware scan and cleanup of infections. The drop in SPAM alone would be well worth it both financially and for the agrevation factor alone.

>> But shouldn't you know that your computer is infected and poses a hazard to everyone else on the Internet? Don't you have a responsibility to keep your computer reasonably secure from infection? Should your Internet access be cut off if you are found to be communicating through an unsafe computer? Some people say "yes."

I agree with the above statement. If you can quarantine a sick individual for the safety of the public, then the same should apply for the internet.

Each individual has the responsibility to make sure that their computer is updated with the latest security updates. If you choose not to do this, then you should not have internet access.

It's a political issue. A good idea on the face of it, but watch out for under cover censorship. Just take a look at two cable TV networks, one "progressive" and the other "conservative". It is not unreasonable that these two media giants have connections in media other than cable television. So, the ISP connected with, say the "conservative" TV guys sees a lot of blogging about say, Michele Bachmann and WHAMO! And just like an unscrupulous cop could plant evidence on a suspect, an ISP would have an easy job of putting the malware on an "enemy" computer. Again, it is a good idea, but requires more oversight than just the say-so of an ISP.

The problem is that the vast majority of pc users haven't the foggiest idea what they're doing. All they know is to turn on the computer, log on to a web site for their e-mail and turn the pc off. Firewall? Whats that? Anti-virus. Ditto! And so we put them into the 'DUH' category of users!!

I agree that ISP`s should do everything they can do to warn their customers that they have infected computers.
IMHO its children and teenagers mostly that download everything and anything without taking security precautions.They seem to be either too trusting or simply don`t care.

I agree that quarantine is a viable option at the ISP level only. We don't need more government intrusion into our lives or federal enforcement agencies created, thank you very much.

What a silly proposal. So granny, who is computer illiterate and just wants to be able to video-chat with her grandchildren will be kicked off the internet by "someone" because her computer gets infected?

How about companies that produce software that has holes in it be "quarantined" for selling defective software in the first place? I pay for my defective copy of Windows and then pay for anti-virus/anti-malware software to keep me protected from exploits due to that defective software?

ISP's aren't going to enforce these silly rules because they don't want to lose their revenue streams to competitors. Most people have access to at least 5 methods of accessing the internet - DSL, Cable, Satellite, Dial-up and Cellular Broadband. Kick Granny off one and she will switch to another and then Comcast is out a customer.

How quickly would people ditch Windows for Linux or Mac?

And the author and some posters are actually comparing surfing with driving a car or the severity of becoming infected with a contagious disease, please, step away from the keyboard. What a completely lame comparison.

No product is 100% effective in detection or cleaning of malware anyway. So then what? Your computer is put offline until you get clean and tough luck that your report for school or your boss is due tomorrow?

Forget about businesses with hundreds of computers behind routers. what about households with 2, 3 or 5+ computers sharing a single connection?

How ironic that posters agree with this idea. If they all kept their machines patched and adequate antivirus, it shouldn't be an issue for them.

A lot of unanswered questions here. What about the companies that sell web browsers with security holes big enough to sail a cruise liner through? What responsibility should ISPs have for stopping spam and other malicious crap from getting a free ride? What anti virus program will catch all the bad stuff?

I have always had an anti virus program on my computers that is updated daily and sometimes oftener. I've still been bitten several times.

I don't subscribe to the "...there ought to be a law ..." mantra. There is no such a thing as 100% security, and no amount of laws or regulations will change that. The proposal above sounds good, perhaps, but it would ultimately drive everyone but geeks off the internet. It's an idea that needs a lot of re-thinking.

I completely agree. It's as simple as any of the other rules we have to help a civilised society operate. The sooner the better.

How do we, as innocent users, move this along?

'Responsibility' is the key word. We pay our ISP for access to the internet and thus it is THEIR responsibility that we should enjoy a service that is fit for purpose. So, away with all the media-style headlining about Government intervention - the ISPs themselves should be compelled to police their own realms. They should take down websites proven to carry malware, and they should block known spammers' email addresses. It is the ISPs' own lax approach to privacy and security that is facilitating the rise in malware and spamming. Too easy just to blame the end users who would not need antispyware and antivirus programs, firewalls and the like if the ISPs were more dutiful and diligent in managing their businesses.

Ummm....
How about finding the REAL crooks, perpetrators, guilty parties, Virus Creators, Spam Creators, MalWare Writers, and so on??

Rather than try police 2 billion computers, and catch the 1.999 billion innocent people... they could go after the bad guys. Instead of shooting everyone in Pakistan, they got bin Laden.

Then again, if ISP's had better filters..... IFFF Gmail, Hotmail, and so on had better filters. IFFF Apple, IBM, RedHat, and Microsoft wrote better O/S's....

Most people who get caught up in a botnet or whatever have no idea what, how, or why. So perhaps, a little education, and a little help could help solve the problem. Sadly, for many that help would have to be made very cheap to be affordable....

I try provide such help to a number of local seniors, with the little bit I know (in the land of the blind...) but it is an uphill battle. I also know a local computer store that does this. The guy "knows" his clients. He'll fix $600+ problems for

At least AVG, AVAST, SpyBot S&D, and Ad-Aware try and help out.

Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. No Doubt Whatsoever. And for those who instigate this crap, string 'em up by the toenails...no trial....no nuttin'....just DO IT.