An Immodest Proposal

Some chump over at Slate rocks the bullshit economics to let us know that it would cost less to kill worm writers than imprison them. It’s all an argument for encouraging more impartial economic thought by the government, which isn’t a bad thing, but this guy’s reasoning is shabby at best.

I won’t take it point by point, but his conclusion is worth eviscerating: “Governments exist largely to supply protections that, for one reason or another, we can’t purchase in the marketplace.” Take that as fact and the author is still wrong in the case of virus writers: protections against what he eye-rollingly dubs “vermiscripters” can be purchased in the marketplace. All the recent widespread worms have exploited gaping holes in Microsoft Windows and products that run on that operating system. A consumer choice to use Windows is a consumer choice to be exploited and suffer losses, tantamount to consciously moving into a crime-ridden neighborhood. Government should be protecting us from monopolies peddling insecure software, not the petty vandals who write worms.

Further, information security policy implemented in the US is next to worthless in a global network context unless developed in tandem with international partners to ensure extradition rights. Even if our courts suddenly decide to kick it Texas style and execute worm authors, chances are slim-to-nil that our global partners would go along with such daft policy.

Ultimately the article is about the author’s economic perspectives, and the whole proposal a device for expounding upon them. Regardless, he should stick to his “everyday economics” and not venture into territories he’s woefully uninformed of.