> To add insult to injury, you would be forcing them to spend possibly significant amounts of money to get it working again, something that not everyone has ready access to.
Somebody needs to pay the money. In this case, it appears to be the taxpayer. I'm not sure I like this. I'd prefer software companies writing vulnerable software to pay the bill, or the people using the vulnerable software, or perhaps the ISPs (who are being paid by the people using the vulnerable software).
I don't like the taxpayer paying for it because software businesses are making more money by taking security shortcuts and as long as the taxpayer pays for the cost of this then there's no incentive for them to stop.
Somebody needs to pay the money. In this case, it appears to be the taxpayer. I'm not sure I like this. I'd prefer software companies writing vulnerable software to pay the bill, or the people using the vulnerable software, or perhaps the ISPs (who are being paid by the people using the vulnerable software).
I don't like the taxpayer paying for it because software businesses are making more money by taking security shortcuts and as long as the taxpayer pays for the cost of this then there's no incentive for them to stop.