Why Hackers Attack Microsoft Users and How to Make it Stop
Cross posted from my Salon page:
At my workplace, we have recently been having a few computer problems. As we speak, my computer is being reimaged because it was infected by a virus I picked up on Yahoo. Other people are having their e-mail or other drives drop out. While some of this may be the inevitable result of not enough server space, I suspect some of it comes from outside attacks. Indeed, to avoid such attacks, we don't use Microsft Outlook (which would be more convenient), but instead use Lotus Notes.
I was talking this morning with my boss about this and he wondered why Apple has less problems. Are Apple products just better or are they less prone to attack? Why would Apple be better and less prone to attack? Is it just a function of more code sharing by Microsoft? Maybe, but I don't think so.
Microsoft uses a contractor business model when it hires programmers, while Apple uses full-time staff. This gaurantees that eventually, programmers will realize that they don't get either immediate or the long term econommic security associated with actual employment. In the short term, they don't get the kind of benefits an employee gets regarding leave and benefits. Contractors are on their own. In the long term, there are no pension rights or profit sharing. Bill Gates and the people that are permanently employed have become rich on this employment model. The contractors who do much of the work have not.
This outsider model can only lead to resentment. While I am sure contract programmers do quality work, they don't have the incentive to go the extra mile. This can only result in buggy software and systems. The proof is indeed in the product. The features get better every year, but there seem to always be problems. The fact that Apple does not have such problems should serve as a smoking gun.
Eventually, outsiders become ex-contractors. It is not unexpected that ex-contractors with a grudge might possibly design malware - indeed it is shocking that this does not happen more often, since they are more than familiar with the vulnerabilities of the system.
Now, I am not inferring that all current and former Microsoft contract programmers are seething with resentment over their work experience. I am not even implying that most of them do. I am only suggesting that there is a strong possibility that the business model under which they are employed may have caused some of them to retaliate creatively. I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that the possiblility can be ruled out.
So, how do we fix this? That's easier to answer, although expensive.
Bill and Melinda Gates now have more money than God. Indeed, they are giving most of it away. They need to think twice before they give it all away, however. I suggest that a large chunk of it should be set aside for distribution to the current and former contract employees who made them rich beyond belief. Outsized generosity should be shown to people with the shortest tenure, since they are likely to have been the most offended by the circumstances of their employment. This should not be just an award for steller contributors, but an amend for creating a work situation that caused psychic harm, so it should be given to everyone who worked as a contractor for Microsoft.
The other thing to do is to convert current contractors to full employee status and pay real benefits and real profit sharing. Give the executives a small haircut if you must, but the more equal you make basic pay and benefits, the better the overall outcome will be. I am not saying that outsize rewards for innovation should not also be given, they should be to both groups and individuals, but that the basic employment contract should be as egalitarian as possible.
Do these things and you will no longer have to defend being a PC.
At my workplace, we have recently been having a few computer problems. As we speak, my computer is being reimaged because it was infected by a virus I picked up on Yahoo. Other people are having their e-mail or other drives drop out. While some of this may be the inevitable result of not enough server space, I suspect some of it comes from outside attacks. Indeed, to avoid such attacks, we don't use Microsft Outlook (which would be more convenient), but instead use Lotus Notes.
I was talking this morning with my boss about this and he wondered why Apple has less problems. Are Apple products just better or are they less prone to attack? Why would Apple be better and less prone to attack? Is it just a function of more code sharing by Microsoft? Maybe, but I don't think so.
Microsoft uses a contractor business model when it hires programmers, while Apple uses full-time staff. This gaurantees that eventually, programmers will realize that they don't get either immediate or the long term econommic security associated with actual employment. In the short term, they don't get the kind of benefits an employee gets regarding leave and benefits. Contractors are on their own. In the long term, there are no pension rights or profit sharing. Bill Gates and the people that are permanently employed have become rich on this employment model. The contractors who do much of the work have not.
This outsider model can only lead to resentment. While I am sure contract programmers do quality work, they don't have the incentive to go the extra mile. This can only result in buggy software and systems. The proof is indeed in the product. The features get better every year, but there seem to always be problems. The fact that Apple does not have such problems should serve as a smoking gun.
Eventually, outsiders become ex-contractors. It is not unexpected that ex-contractors with a grudge might possibly design malware - indeed it is shocking that this does not happen more often, since they are more than familiar with the vulnerabilities of the system.
Now, I am not inferring that all current and former Microsoft contract programmers are seething with resentment over their work experience. I am not even implying that most of them do. I am only suggesting that there is a strong possibility that the business model under which they are employed may have caused some of them to retaliate creatively. I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that the possiblility can be ruled out.
So, how do we fix this? That's easier to answer, although expensive.
Bill and Melinda Gates now have more money than God. Indeed, they are giving most of it away. They need to think twice before they give it all away, however. I suggest that a large chunk of it should be set aside for distribution to the current and former contract employees who made them rich beyond belief. Outsized generosity should be shown to people with the shortest tenure, since they are likely to have been the most offended by the circumstances of their employment. This should not be just an award for steller contributors, but an amend for creating a work situation that caused psychic harm, so it should be given to everyone who worked as a contractor for Microsoft.
The other thing to do is to convert current contractors to full employee status and pay real benefits and real profit sharing. Give the executives a small haircut if you must, but the more equal you make basic pay and benefits, the better the overall outcome will be. I am not saying that outsize rewards for innovation should not also be given, they should be to both groups and individuals, but that the basic employment contract should be as egalitarian as possible.
Do these things and you will no longer have to defend being a PC.
posted by Michael Bindner at 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home