The patch fixes YAMSH (Yet Another Microsoft Security Hole) -- a really bad one. Without this patch it is possible for some malevolent unknown to force your computer to run a piece of malicious code on your PC without your permission and quite possibly without your knowledge.

Visit the wrong website, click on the wrong link, or open a suitably booby-trapped email (you don't even have to open an attachment) and WHAM -- your PC might be toast -- or worse, a virus, trojan or remote-access program might be covertly installed.

If you're tired of constantly having to download patches to Windows, IE and Outlook -- you could always investigate the huge range of alternatives to these products -- most of which are available absolutely free of charge over the Internet. Go on, be a trend-setter not a blind follower!

Hacking Laws -- Why Bother?
There has been a lot of talk about the merits of introducing anti-hacking laws to discourage and penalise those who might want to crack other people's computer systems.

However, in light of recent comments by the police, one can't help but wonder whether the anti-hacking laws might not be just a clever way to extend the powers of the state to intrude on your privacy.

What am I talking about?

I refer to this story carried by IDG this morning in which the police openly admit that they simply don't have a clue how to go about enforcing fraud laws in respect to a recent Net-related scam.

"It does take a certain amount of expertise to investigate something like that which we don't have. We all basically work off a computer on our desks and we know which buttons to press every now and then" is a very telling quote from the IDG story.

So, if the techno-competence and understanding of our police is limited to pressing a button now and then -- how the hell are they going to enforce anti-hacking laws?

Readers Say (updated hourly) From Yesterday Bork Bork Bork!... - Jamie ISOCNZ funding OBrien case... - Mark Have Your Say

How impressed will you be when you find your company's entire website and e-commerce system has been penetrated by hackers and attempting to lodge a complaint with the police produces the response: "Internet you say.... hmmm... can you spell that for me?"

Of course this isn't the fault of the police. If media reports are to be believed, they're being given a fish and a loaf of bread then asked to feed millions.

Maybe the government isn't really that worried about enforcing the proposed new bill -- perhaps they see it as just a convenient way of justifying the passage of legislation enabling state-endorsed Net-snooping on its citizens?

So, when this new anti-hacking law fails to work because it remains unenforced, what will our politicians do next?

Well if it's anything like our firearms laws (which are equally unenforced), they'll simply claim that we need stronger anti-hacking laws with more restrictions and harsher penalties.

Someone really ought to give our politicians a whack upside their heads with a great big cluestick. Laws are only effective when they're enforced! After all, by definition, law-breakers don't abide by the law so to be stopped they must be apprehended and prosecuted. Leave out that step and your laws simply become advisories -- nothing more, nothing less.

I suggest that as netizens and Kiwis, we demand the expressed exemptions for certain arms of the state not be passed until police are given the resources to properly enforce the anti-hacking part of the legislation. To do otherwise is simply a joke which erodes the freedoms and privacy of Net users for no reason or gain. After all -- if our police can't enforce the laws, why do they need the power to spy on suspected offenders?

As always, your feedback is welcomed.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!

There are 2 Vacancies In The Job Centre

There are 10 Domain Names for sale