[ryandrake]

> Some kind of source IP masking would be prudent. As you pointed out, some of those machines are compromised, and you aren't making their owners' lives any easier.

Hard for me to find much sympathy for negligent users who unintentionally allowed their home computers or phones to join a malicious botnet, or their ISPs who aren't stopping the activity. Even if it is my own grandma's PC.

I agree about the content though, there probably are a lot of actually innocent victims' personal information in the traffic itself.

[taftster]

Easy for you to say, assuming your PC is clean. I don't think negligent is the right word though. Ignorant maybe? Or some form of naivety? The negligence might be on software or hardware vendors, but grandma isn't to blame for the problem.

[singleshot_]

Software providers generally lack a duty to their clients to create and sell secure software. Further, generally, when you get hacked, there is only an interrupted causal chain between the software and your loss. Interrupting that chain is the intervening superseding cause of a criminal third-party. Finally, no states allow punitive damages, absent gross negligence in a software context.

[dpoloncsak]

I disagree personally. If these IPs are being used to attempt to gain unauthorized access, it's better to make the public aware, imo.

[rolph]

when you read or are told not to click on that link in the e-mail, or open the attachment, you should fire up your monitor while you are clicking on the links.

it might be interesting to have an eye on this while you are talking to the phone scammer.