No decent developer would want to risk their reputation, their customer base and their bottom line by releasing something they knew full well was extremely exploitable. It's why there are Alpha & Beta tests prior to any official launch.
The problem is that hindsight is a b*tch and you can never know 100% that what you made is completely secure or will remain secure over time.
Developers big and small can only bug and security test something so much in-house. Due to there being countless variations in a computer's design (types of CPU's, RAM, Video Cards, Motherboards, Hard Drives, PSU's, Modems, Routers, Operating Systems, Web Browsers, etc.) developers can only afford so many different test systems (or only have so much space to hold them all) that they can only do their best to fix all of the things they can find.
It's usually only when a system or program or game is released to the masses around the world that additional issues pop up and is exactly why we have patches and updates.
How many patches and updates has Windows XP had over the years?
Sure a program can be made tight as a drum and secure, but when others create new programs and new codes over time, they create new issues that didn't exist before and can end up opening the doors to your program and get exploited.
If developers are supposed to be held liable for things they need a time machine to predict then you wouldn't have much development being made at all because nobody would want to take the risk..... It's completely stupid and unrealistic.... And consumers need to educate themselves on how it all works because they take this technology for granted and they are more responsible for their own personal information and data than anybody else.
You face risks every single day when you use technology.... Be that from being connected to the internet and can be hacked or recorded.... Or from a mechanical failure or hardware breakdown of a computer or hard drive holding all your data.
Sh*t happens and if people can't accept that and want to blame those who provide the things they take for granted then the forest is that way ->
This Jeremie Zimmermann is a fk'n quack.
He acts as though none of this is surprising and he predicted it all beforehand..... Yet if that was the case, wtf didn't he say something sooner?
Again, Hindsight's a b*tch and he's the Captain.
He argues that having cell phones and computers restricted by the developers, customers don't have the opportunity to understand and learn how to make themselves secure..... And in the same breath claims these same customers are friggin morons who wouldn't have the first clue what to do even if they did have this access.
And because these customers are morons in his eyes, it's somehow a bad thing that the developers are restricting their access to these systems/programs.
All that making it open access to the masses does is make it far easier for hackers to see what they're dealing with and thus, attack everybody easily.
Yes there are those who will go on about how magical and wonderful Linux is because it's open source, and seems nice and secure.
Linux suffers from the same delusions as Macs have for years. For years, Apple boasted about how secure and protected their programs and OS's were and that you didn't even need an antivirus like Windows.
The reality was that the market and the population of people around the world using Macs was minimal and hackers gain more profit going after the systems the most people use..... Windows.
When Windows Vista came out, there was a hacker convention thing I saw way back where they got two very experienced hackers to see how fast they could break into a Windows Vista computer and the Mac OSX of the time. The mac system was hacked within seconds.
Go onto YouTube now and you can find a recent video of someone showing you how you can get root access to a mac in 20 seconds or less.
Now as more people are purchasing Macs, there are more hacks and viruses coming out for them.
Famous Hacker Calls Windows More Secure than Mac
Security Expert: Windows 7 Is More Secure Than Mac OS X | Windows content from Windows IT Pro
The point being is that the moment more people jump on board to a new system because they think it's more secure, the more hackers will target them..... What's worse is that if and when they do attack, it can and will be far more devastating compared to sticking with a system that has already spent years and piles of money trying to keep up to date and secure, rather than jumping onto a system by a company ignorant about their faults.
From the OP and that idiot:
"When a car or kitchen equipment manufacturer produces equipment that has a flaw, which is dangerous then it is normal that users can request damages to be paid, that those people be held liable for the flaw in their product. There is no such liability with software and hardware manufacturers when it comes to computers, so maybe this is also an area we could think about."
Again, moron.
It's not like a car or a friggin toaster.... When you buy one of these things, they come off an assembly line, they are all one model, their level of quality assurance and checks are simplistic in comparison to trying to do the same thing with an operating system or something connected to the internet.
Which leads to the even more glaring difference:
NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR FK'N TOASTER FROM HALFWAY AROUND TO WORLD!!!
When a car or kitchen appliance becomes "dangerous" that's usually relating to a physical danger like burning down your house or an airbag driving your nose into the back of your brain.
When a mechanical appliance is faulty and a risk, it's a manufacturing fault, covered under warranty and is either replaced or money is refunded.
If you buy a program or computer that doesn't work as intended, is faulty or buggy, you are also covered under warranty and the above also applies.
But when someone hacks your system and steals your information like your bank details or ID, that's no different that someone stealing your car and going for a joy ride, or breaking into your house and stealing your purse, wallet, TV.....
Do you sue the guy who built your house?
Do you sue the car dealership who sold the car?
No, you go for the fk'n criminal who stole your sh*t you d*ckhead!
