MMedit web site

Author Message

Joined: 08/11/2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 807
Posted: 11:07pm 07 Sep 2017      

  CaptainBoing said  
That is a great idea and they are always looking for reasonable sized articles. It needs to be very thoughtful - I wouldn't mention specifics - it makes them targets. Remember these malware scumbags are VERY SMART - they have done their homework, and we don't want to give them the upper hand in such an article (yes they read this stuff too).

Bit extreme Captain, calling Nortons smart....

OH you mean the OTHER malware scumbags...

Unfortunately many people say the same thing- Nortons false positives are far too common, and getting off their blacklist costs and is very hard to do (if not almost impossible)

Considering that in many cases peoples livelihoods are placed at risk if their income depends on a website for sales etc, and it could be put forward that Nortons could be liable for lost income due to a false positive reducing sales, it would be (IMHO) worth looking at a class action against Nortons for website owners affected by a false positive report on their website

I'm not normally one to push for such legal actions, but this has been an issue for YEARS with Nortons continuing to shrug their shoulders and say 'not our problem' about false positives- well yes, yes it IS your problem, its YOUR shonky scanners that cause the issue, and if it causes people to lose money, then it should be their right for Nortons to compensate the owner for any lost income from their website

/rant off

calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean....