ISP apathy causes insecurity

An article over at takes a look at that old concept of requiring a license to use the internet.
Just as corporate and university networks have taken steps to implement access control to keep out infected systems so too should ISPs look at banning machines that don’t meet a defined security regime.
The article goes on to draw parallels to drivers licenses, restaurants known to service food that makes you ill, and bad neighbors. If you can call the cops to do something about that why cant you ban bad Internet neighbors!
In the U.S. the vast majority of Internet service providers are trying to make a buck. Why would they refuse service to these cyberslackers who quickly become spam-bots because of their inability to patch. Banks do it all the time. They refuse to open accounts for people known to bounce checks. A few bucks up front for the account isn’t worth the trouble that will come down the pipe. Unfortunately this analogy has been largely lost on ISPs.
Many ISPs have pink-list contracts. Contracts where spammers pay a PREMIUM and may hang around until the anti-spammers complain too much. Historically many ISPs have not been good caretakers of their portion of the network. They are in for the fast buck. They are more than willing to let Ma and Pa Kettle onto the Internet without a personal firewall, without adequate patching and without adequate antivirus. AOL and Earthlink run commercials saying they are different. They are able to sell security to the user by selling usability brought by security devices blocking spam and spyware. But how many of AOLs customers actually have the AOL Security Edition?