Swytch said:
BillHarrison said:
Any number of possible circumstances: an antivirus client that had not been properly receiving updates from the server; an antivirus client which switched off realtime protection (Symantec products do this from time to time, but the AV service remains running, so there's no way to detect a problem), or the possibility that the file propagated through execution on an unprotected folder (one with frequent writes/rewrites which would be slowed down by realtime protection). The machine was not necessarily connected to an email server or to the Internet. Furthermore, the small number of affected cases suggests that the facility employs sufficiently robust security measures--a poor security model would have allowed this virus to bounce around and compromise other systems.vga4life said:
Prove negligence. Based on what's been reported, there's no cause to believe that policies or practices were not reasonable and sufficient to discourage this eventuality.
Nonsense. Production of documents detailing a sufficient security policy, logs and/or records of due diligence being exercised in following that policy, and a historical track record free of similar blemishes would end the case in summary judgment. It wouldn't get to a jury, from the information that has been reported to this point.
I used the term once, and used it correctly. The customer is privy to the transaction with Apple, hence the customer's response is to Apple. Edit: If there's some other place I used it, please enlighten me, as I can't seem to find it.
AidenShaw said:
Catt said:
gloss said:
matticus008 said:
The iPods were compromised because they were connected to a single PC at the facility (likely a QC or asset management process, i.e. post production), with only a few dozen "bad" iPods--likely less than an hour's work. Out of the thousands of iPods manufactured during this time, a very small number were affected, which can only reflect otherwise adequate security. There is no such thing as 100% security, and out of 30 or 40 or however many million iPods shipped, this was bound to happen eventually. Also consider that this has happened at least three other times with other MP3 player companies, to say nothing of the dozens of times it's happened outside the MP3 player field over the past decade.vga4life said:
Did you miss the part where this could be explained through option c) "stuff" happens? What proof do you have that the machine had insufficient security by design and that it wasn't a crashed or out-of-date AV client? What evidence or intuition suggests that there is no possibility that this was inevitable in practical terms? That is, are there more rigorous standards employed by anyone else, or failing that, are there more rigorous standards that can reasonably be expected?
That's not the issue. Every company produces faulty products from time to time. There is nothing to suggest that Apple could realistically be expected to do better. 25 iPods, or even 500 iPods, do not represent a failure in policy or practice simply because they exist. It is not possible to have a human monitoring every machine at all times to catch when Symantec disables realtime protection or when the client update didn't actually take, even though it reported success to the server.
What law was broken?
matticus008 said:
That was 25 or so "reports" - you are obviously part of a much larger group who have not reported Apple's QC lapse...gilgalad101 said:
Overall I agree, but the reality of this is that the iPod in this case is acting like any other removable USB device. It is just a carrier device. Other similar devices USB disk drive devices for example like you heard McDonald promotion one, can also contain viruses, it is just a small disk drive in this mode.jessica. said:
There's a clear precedent established for companies not being liable for monetary damages for these incidents, so long as the company acted in good faith in stopping the situation as soon as possible and providing prompt notification and rectification to affected users. Apple has done both.vga4life said:
That wasn't the point. The point is that there is the possibility that Apple could not have been reasonably expected to take any further action, and that their practices and policies are at least as secure as the industry norm. The limited scope of the incident suggests that there is no endemic lack of security at the production facility in question. Their liability is duly limited by the fact that this event may not have been capable of being anticipated and acceptable and sufficient policies and specifications to contractors were in place at Apple. Apple must take the public heat, but it would be extremely difficult to pin Apple down for an at-fault complaint.
The fix was issued promptly, and the only "substantial remedy" one might have a chance of collecting would be if someone's personal system were compromised by the iPod prior to public notification of the problem.
Dingdingding! Enter Microsoft, with all its exploits, code vulnerabilities, and security problems. Here's the rub, though. Software vulnerabilities and malware are a fact of life--no software is secure and companies to date have not been held liable for vulnerabilities or malware associated with their product (unless the product was designed to include said malware). A brief perusal of Westlaw shows no case where a company has been successfully prosecuted for accidentally shipping malware or un-secure code.
vga4life said:
matticus008 said:
And who, pray tell, would benefit from that?vga4life said:
Oh I agree--I think now is the time to set this precedent. I worry about the number of technophobic (and just plain moronic) judges in the system these days. However, I wouldn't choose this case to make an explosive entry to the field--I'd choose a bigger target with a more immediate and tangible harm if I wanted to make a big splash here. I don't feel there's any merit to this case or that there's any unmet responsibility for which Apple is liable.vga4life said:
AidenShaw said:
Swytch said: