Article Image
IPFS News Link • Internet

Microsoft exec pitches Internet usage tax to pay for cybersecurity

Microsoft Vice President for Trustworthy Computing Scott Charney pitched the Web usage fee as one way to subsidize efforts to combat emerging cyber threats -- a costly venture, he said, but one that had vast community benefits. "You could say it\'s a public safety issue and do it with general taxation," Charney noted. Ultimately, Charney was only offering one suggestion during the RSA security conference; not a precise policy prescription. But his idea has already riled many in the computer world, some of whom have since charged Microsoft and its historically vulnerable Windows operating system are responsible for countless, worldwide cybersecurity problems.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by TL Winslow (21344)
Entered on:

The govt. should go back to declaring Microsoft an illegal monopoly and confiscate half or more of its assets to pay for Internet security, not make the already ripped-off little guy pay yet again. Point two: Whose software is the biggest leak in Internet security? Starts with M. They should be ordered to pay a percentage of their profits for Internet security on that theory alone.

Comment by Ross Wolf (28231)
Entered on:

U.S. Government despite promises that Einstein 3 would not invade private email, phone and other private communications in its fight against terrorists, has habitually broken such promises in the past expanding its electronic spying to include private electronic communications that don’t involve terrorism and to arrest U.S. Citizens for alleged ordinary crimes. Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what warrant-less NSA electronic surveillance un Bush II could be used by police or introduced into court by U.S. Government to prosecute Citizens and foreign businesses doing business in America. It appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate criminal and civil prosecutions that may include forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the assets. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s “wiretapped” hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is required only to show “A preponderance of Evidence” to civilly forfeit assets. Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture.