Dustin Cook wrote:

> And again, such tactics would eventually land on the wrong machine. Say,
> mine for example. My curosity would force me to go digging and
> eventually, I *would* find the modifications.

Now *that* is exactly what I tried to encourage you to do, Dustin!

In particular at Annex.com and Dogagent.com

Aumha.net? I'm unsure - but Robear Dyer *has* lied.

> Many other experts would as
> well. A blog site would appear, further experts would examine the site
> mentioned and it would just go south for the site/software owner/creator
> from that point on.

I can hope for nothing more than that someone *will* take an interest
and investigate. Most folk are too busy to do as I have done for well
over four years now. I've never professed to know much about computers
but I do have an ability to sense when things do not ring true.

> In a way, checks and balances which is what you seem concerned with do
> take place on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are right but it seems that such checks and balances are
woefully inadequate. The bad guys are winning and cybercrime is still
escalating. You saw for yourself, with the recent Times Square incident,
that the terrorist threat is still with us. I'd bet next weeks pension
that at least a proportion of money stolen on the Internet is directed
to fund such activity. I don't like that.

Just like the Somali pirates, the Internet bad guys *must* be stopped.

FWIW

--
Dave