Improve Internet Health with a Microsoft Tax?

by Joe Brockmeier - Mar. 02, 2010Comments (12)

Somebody better tell Microsoft that it's still March, because the suggestion of an "Internet usage tax" to fight Windows-powered botnets must be an April Fool's joke let out a month too early.

According to Robert McMillan's piece on ComputerWorld, Scott Charney (Microsoft's veep for Trustworthy Computing) suggests that one way to fund fighting botnets is to tax users. "You could say it's a public safety issue and do it with general taxation." You could, but let's not.

Few are likely to be impressed or take seriously a suggestion that a "general taxation" should be used to fix a problem that Microsoft is more than partly responsible for, especially when the company reaps staggering profits on its Windows licenses in the first place. The folks running Windows have already paid their tax, and users on other OSes aren't (for the most part) contributing to the botnets in the first place. I've grown out of the knee-jerk Microsoft bashing phase, but this is hands-down one of the silliest suggestions that has come out of any company in a while.

Some of Charney's other suggestions, such as public education, however, have some merit. Rather than taxing the ISP-using public to help control botnets, maybe Microsoft should be taxed to create Public Service Announcements (PSAs) to educate users on the perils of malware, and the fact that users have choices when it comes to operating systems. A tobacco-style tax aimed at Microsoft products to solve the problem might have some merit.

The idea of Microsoft-funded PSAs advertising Linux as a way to avoid Internet-spread malware sounds much more reasonable than taxing all users to shore up defenses against Windows-based botnets. And it would give Microsoft an added incentive to work harder to solve the problem. If and when Windows-based botnets are a thing of the past, then the company could stop paying for the PSAs. At least that makes more sense than a general taxation for end users.

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier is a freelance writer and editor with more than 10 years covering IT. Formerly the openSUSE Community Manager for Novell, Brockmeier has written for Linux Magazine, Sys Admin, Linux Pro Magazine, IBM developerWorks, Linux.com, CIO.com, Linux Weekly News, ZDNet, and many other publications. Brockmeier is also a FLOSS advocate and participates in several projects, including GNOME as the PR team lead. You can reach Zonker at jzb@zonker.net and follow him on Twitter.

Previous: CodeWeavers 9.0 For ...Next: Five Open Source Fee... Browse Blog

by Grant on Mar. 02, 2010

Better idea: Instead of taxing everyone, just fine everyone who is part of the botnet, or even anyone found with any malware for that matter. Kind of like driving around without tail lights. If you don't keep up the maintenance, and keep it in safe running condition, you get fined!

I think that might cause some people to take notice that although MS has 80% of the market, they have 99.9999999% of the fines.

0 Votes

by AC on Mar. 03, 2010

How about an excise tax on Microsoft operating systems, and/or computer hardware that has a Microsoft operating system pre--installed - say 250%?

This should solve a substantial number of problems.

0 Votes

by Scott on Mar. 03, 2010

This is an excellent idea. I would set up an independent group to control the content of the public service messages to prevent Microsoft from watering down the message.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 03, 2010

Good point Joe, you nailed it!

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 03, 2010

If there is a Malware tax, then the Linux and Unix users should get a tax break.

0 Votes

by hiippari on Mar. 03, 2010

Anyone running a *nix or any non MS should get a tax break, or even better, those that run a diagnostic tools to check and report suspicious packets in their subnet should get paid because in that case they would submit information for solving the malware issue. ;) only if.... :D

0 Votes

by Aaron Hayes on Mar. 04, 2010

I know people say 'Microsoft is evil' all the time... and it sounds like personal bias, so let me say it a different way...

Microsoft has a history... from their point of conception... of undermining others for the sake of their own profits.

They will tear down anyone to build themselves up. They are the quintessential example of ruthless corporate control.

In my estimation, there is little that Microsoft does that is not calculated.

There is always a reason behind why they do things, and the reason ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS is rooted in one of 3 things...

1. Increasing profitability by expanding market share.

2. Increasing Market share by limiting the usability of other platforms through patent control, or making them seem less usable through focused negative PR.

3. Endearing themselves to power players (Policy makers) so that they can use governemt to leverage marketshare.

This seemingly off the cuff comment by Scott Charney is an attempt by Microsoft to endear themselves to goverment officials by placing their technology solutions behind potential tax revenues. If they can offer the promise of tax revenues to cash strapped Goverments, then policy makers will misuse the law to take out Microsofts competition, and will stop suing them for anti-trust activity. Or so they hope. But make no mistake, Microsoft is evil.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 04, 2010

That's a great idea, taxing manufactures or buyers that get a PC with Windows pre-installed. The tax should be clearly visible like the GST tax. "Because Windows is totally insecure we need to tax you with 25% to fight bot nets. For more information visit www.windowsinsecure.gov"

0 Votes

by Marco Fioretti on Mar. 04, 2010

Here's my take on the issue: Microsoft asking public taxes to fix their bugs is just like Toyota asking that public taxes are used to replace their broken gas pedals. More at

http://stop.zona-m.net/active-citizens/taxing-every-citizen-microsoft-wi...

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 04, 2010

how about just putting microsoft and all of it's products on "death list" and eliminate the company, send it's owners and workers to prison camps and also give everyone 3 months to get away from this platform?

you think i'm cynical? well, much less so than that ms idiot who would tax everyone.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 04, 2010

a $100 tax on all Microsoft Windows installations aught to do it!

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Mar. 05, 2010

I am against any kind of tax to improve public safety from a product produced by a specific company. This is very similar if not exactly the same as the auto industry. If a vehicle defect is deemed to be a risk to public safety, the company who built the product in question is forced to make a recall on that product. The recall must remove the risk to public safety. Be it some mechanical, electrical, or software repair. If the defect cannot be repaired, the product must be returned to the manufacturer for some pro-rated compensation, either in cash or discounts toward another product not deemed to be a risk to public safety. This same mitigation method has been used for many different products across many different industries. We should not allow one industry or a single company to lobby for and/or negotiate an exception to the normal process established over 100 years of industrial development. It has become readily apparent that there is inherent risk to public safety caused by poor software design that must not be allowed to be brushed away by some disclaimer written on a piece of paper that was delivered with the product. The software product that has put public safety at risk must be recalled for repair or replacement immediately.

0 Votes