Technology in terms you understand. Sign up for the Confident Computing newsletter for weekly solutions to make your life easier. Click here and get The Ask Leo! Guide to Staying Safe on the Internet — FREE Edition as my thank you for subscribing!

Never Attribute to Malice . . .

Jumping to the wrong conclusion rarely helps.

(Image: askleo.com)
Malicious intent is commonly understood to be the cause of technological trials and tribulations. It's usually the wrong assumption to make.
The Best of Ask Leo!

The pithy statement above is referred to as Hanlon’s Razor.

It keeps coming to mind as I hear from people who are absolutely convinced that malice is at play in whatever they’re experiencing.

It’s rarely the case.

Become a Patron of Ask Leo! and go ad-free!

TL;DR:

Never attribute to malice . . .

Many people jump to malicious intent to explain a problem with their computer or technology. That’s rarely the case. More common are simple missteps, mistakes, failures, and errors. Looking for a malicious actor when there isn’t one is time better spent focusing on the likely causes of odd behavior.

Hanlon’s Razor, extended

When it comes to computers and technology, I extend Hanlon’s opinion a little further.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, error, or failure.Tweet this!

Just as it’s rarely malice at play, it’s not always stupidity either. All people, smart and stupid, make mistakes. Failures —  particularly hardware failures — happen.

Any or all of those can be used to more than adequately explain the various and sundry problems we experience with technology.

My ISP is blocking a website…

This topic came to mind recently when I received a question about an individual’s inability to access a specific website. He knew other customers of his ISP also could not access the site, whereas customers of other ISPs could.

Clearly, to him, his ISP was blocking the site.

That could be.

It’s just not likely.

There are other more plausible explanations.

Most likely, his ISP’s DNS had a problem and couldn’t resolve the IP address for the website in question. It’s also possible the website in question experienced something it mistakenly interpreted as an attack1 and blocked the ISP. It’s possible the website’s DNS was misconfigured, and due to DNS caching, his ISP was the first to see a problem that would eventually affect everyone.

Or it could be something else.

Malice is possible, as might be stupidity somewhere along the line; but errors and failures are much more likely.

My computer is behaving oddly…

Whenever someone’s computer behaves in an unexpected way, many people’s first response is, “Oh my God, I’ve been hacked!”

No. Just … no.

Seriously.

Hacking as the cause for odd computer behavior is so rare, I’m very comfortable just saying it’s not the cause of the problem you’re experiencing.Tweet this!

Software bugs, hardware failures, failed updates, flaky internet connections, worn-out batteries, exceeded disk capacities, and many more things are much more likely. All of these manifest in obvious ways that make it clear what’s going on, or in ways that appear completely random as if the machine is “possessed” — just not by hackers.

And that doesn’t even begin to touch on what we lovingly refer to as “operator malfunction”: mistakes made by the person using the computer.

Ads are stalking me…

I have to include this class of behavior here, though it may be the most difficult to accept.

Without a doubt, there are privacy issues on the internet. But ads following you around is not one of them. Showing ads for something you’ve seemed to express an interest in isn’t malicious; it’s marketing. It’s nothing more than salesmanship using today’s technology.

Creepy? Maybe, if you don’t understand what’s happening. But malicious? No. Not in my book.

Speaking of marketing…

Things change just to piss us off…

I hear this one after any major change to an operating system, application, or web service. Things looked one way yesterday, and look different today. Companies must be doing this just to annoy us, right?

If you think about it, that doesn’t even make sense. Change intended to annoy your customers is business suicide, as is change for the sake of change. No company wants or does that.

If your favorite OS, app, or website never changed, it would be just as bad for business. Never changing means not keeping up with current trends, not taking advantage of new technologies, and failure to adapt to new ways of doing things. You may be happy with an operating system that works the same way as it did 20 years ago, but the company that made it would be out of business if that’s what they offered.

Businesses that don’t change, adapt, and grow die. It’s a simple as that.Tweet this!

Growth is not malicious. Bad decisions about how to grow are not malicious — they’re just bad decisions. To refer back to my extension of Hanlon’s Razor, they’re errors or failures.

That you’re pissed off is certainly not intentional.

So, is there malice?

Of course, there is malice out there. Hackers hack, scammers scam, and spammers spam. Businesses knowingly leverage your information in malicious and often illegal2 ways.

My point here is that when you experience something unexpected with your computer, technology, online experience, or data, unless you have evidence that says otherwise, malicious intent isn’t the place to start looking.

The actual causes are usually significantly more mundane.

And, honestly, that’s a good thing. More mundane causes are easier to deal with.

Subscribe to Confident Computing! Tech problem solving & safety tips & a weekly confidence boost in your inbox every week.

I'll see you there!

10 Reasons Your Computer is Slow

Slow Computer?

Speed up with my special report: 10 Reasons Your Computer is Slow, now updated for Windows 10.

NOW: name your own price! You decide how much to pay -- and yes, that means you can get this report completely free if you so choose. Get your copy now!

Podcast audio

Play

Footnotes & References

1: Every website, server, and device connected directly to the internet is under some form of nearly constant attack. Really. Any server operator can find the evidence in their server logs. This is something you can attribute to malice.

2: Interestingly, the two are not synonymous in either direction.

31 comments on “Never Attribute to Malice . . .”

  1. Timely article. Just this past week, I started having problems accessing my bank account on line. When calling the bank to find out why 3 different browsers refused to let me log in due to a problem with the site’s security certificate and following their instructions to clear browser caches, restarting my gateway and even trying a different computer, it turned out that the bank’s system had decided to block my IP address for some reason. Malicious? No. Annoying? Heck, yes! Neither I or the bank’s representative could figure out why it happened, other than some kind of software glitch.

    Reply
  2. Change.
    Being recently ‘promoted’ (I use the word advisedly) to IT Manager, I often get a number of complaints – most often about Office 365 – that things have moved or changed, and they want them put back. I have to explain, patiently, that I have no control over what software companies ultimately choose to update, revise, or remove from their products.
    “Back in the Day”, when software was purchased, it was a choice whether the latest version was necessary. However, the current business model for a lot of software is that you rent it, not buy it (they call them services now) – and as such, you are more or less forced to use the most up to date version or not use it at all.

    Reply
  3. Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source, as anyone can write anything in there they chose. The quote about malice has been attributed to surely100 other people as well, everyone from Benjamin Franklin to Hitler.

    Reply
    • Actually Wikipedia is pretty good. Being open source, you are welcome to correct any wrong conclusion or interpretation. Maybe a quote like this isn’t critical enough to generate comment, but try to change the inaugaration of Diocletian from 284 AD to 294 and see what happens! There is a lot of good scholarship on Wikipedia. For detail it beats the free version of Britannica any day. If nothing else, it will often give you a good bibliography to follow up on writings about your subject in greater detail.

      Reply
  4. My favorite example of this is the “new & improved” Ribbon “gooey” in Office 2007.

    There were a couple of reasons of implementing it
    . * They didn’t have enough other new features so they came up with this one (maybe malicious, maybe trye
    . * The Ribbon is locked down to (virtually) eliminate user customization support calls (true)

    And then there is Windows Update. There have been volumes written about it! Although the effects of bad updates feel malicious, the problems are more realistically attributed to “stupidity, error, and failure”:
    . * Stupidity because MS has cut back on internal quality control / testers.
    . * Error, because MS simply cheaped out and no longer fully tests changes
    . * Failure, because MS failed to pay enough attention to their unpaid “crash test dummies”, their “Insiders”, those lost, lone voices screaming in the dark …

    Unfortunately, the simple reality is that testing anything in the Windows environment is a Sisyphean task. There are so many combinations and permutations of hardware and software that it is effectively impossible to test everything.

    Reply
  5. When speaking about being hacked, does that include being infected by malware or ransomware, or is it something more specific and rare ?

    Reply
    • Hacked generally refers to someone taking control of your computer, your network, or your online accounts. A malware infection can be one way they accomplish the hack, but generally refers to any software with malicious intent.

      Reply
  6. Thank you. Now that brings some comfort.

    My setup has grown maddeningly slow at times, and of course the lingering thought is to suspect a virus. But repeated scans keep giving clean results. I’ll blame it on Windows rot… (and lack of RAM for part of the problem, that’s for sure).

    Reply
  7. Leo, this article was words of wisdom and worthy of framing and hanging on the wall.

    Between Hanlon’s Razor and Occam’s Razor, most computer problems are addressed.

    Reply
  8. Great article, but I can only agree about 80% on change for the sake of change not being a thing. I’ve seen many changes that improved nothing. As an example, on my first 2 Android smartphones, when I received a phone call (yes, you can use them for that) I would swipe the icon right to answer the call or left to reject it. On my latest phone, running Android 8, and the same manufacturer as the first 2, I have to swipe up to answer and down to reject. And since the icon is already near the bottom of the screen, about half the time the downward swipe accomplishes nothing. I challenge anyone to explain how changing from a right/left swipe to an up/down swipe was anything but change for the sake of change.

    Reply
    • The reason change for the sake of change isn’t a thing is because change costs money. The motivation behind change is to improve. It could be an improvement in performance, added features, bug repair, ease of use or enhanced user experience etc. Or even a change to enhance the revenue flow by pointing people to Bing and Edge. The problem is that one fix can break something else. A wow interface which people hate etc. A disastrous result in change generates all kinds of speculation of motive. But a company’s motivation in spending money on change is always to improve something.

      Reply
    • I’m absolutely convinced that someone has a logical, rational reason that it was “better” — perhaps some people prefered it, perhaps it fits into some more global UI standard, perhaps it was a change meant to appease the boss — but it had a reason. It was not simply a change for the sake of changing things. Now … whether it was the right change, or a mistake, or something else is totally debatable. But just because we can’t see why a change might happen doesn’t mean that there isn’t a reason.

      Reply
  9. On change for change’s sake, I think you are being too generous to the software companies. Your view that it would be suicide to tick off users ignores the obvious: Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, etc. dismiss user feedback without a second thought. After all, what does one user matter when you have millions? Software companies also consistently fail to recognize the cost of retraining. Suppose Adobe makes a minor change to Photoshop, one that takes only 5 minutes to master. But there are at least 5 million people using Photoshop. That’s 25 MILLION minutes of lost productivity — more than 200 years of 40-hour weeks. “It’s better” is NOT a sufficient reason to justify making a change. It has to be so much better that it is worth the huge cost it imposes on the user community.

    Another common failing is in looking at new users versus installed base. It may well be easier for a novice to master a new user interface — but that changed user interface instantly drops all existing users back to novice status — wiping out expertise and proficiency that was gained over years of regular use. Sacrificing current customers — the ones who got you to where you are today — in order to entice new customers is a questionable strategy.

    One writer — who makes a very good living writing books on how to use popular software packages — calls it “interface thrash.”

    Reply
    • “Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, etc. dismiss user feedback without a second thought.” I’m curious what data you have to back up this claim? Having been within the beast I know they didn’t dismiss things without consideration. Just because they didn’t make the decisions you might want doesn’t mean that they aren’t listening. Again, the changes are made for a reason. Just because you don’t like the reason (and I’m not saying you should) doesn’t mean that there wasn’t thought and consideration put into them.

      Reply
    • “After all, what does one user matter when you have millions?”
      One person with an issue might not matter but why would they annoy millions to make one person happy?
      They are in the business of making as many people happy with their software as possible. If significant amounts of “one user”s want something, they are likely to try to make them happy.

      Reply
      • Also, consider that it’s very likely they would annoy millions to make the right corporations happy, if those corporations are big enough. I do believe that a lot stems from the so-called “average user” (i.e. you & I) not really being the target market we think we are.

        Reply
  10. I had my computer hacked by a “kid”. I just never turned the computer back on. A year or two later my computer store, who I did “not” contact at the time, told me that it likely was a kid just messing around and I was the one he caught. Thank all things that there was no info of any importance. Now thanks to you I know far more about protection. Routers, strong passwords….then recently a password for my PC. Never thought of that one. So like many others “hacking” scares the bejesus out of me. This article is a huge relief. P’s & Q’s must still be minded but other wise…don’t worry. Whewwww

    Reply
  11. Leo, you wrote:

    “You may be happy with an operating system that works the same way as it did 20 years ago, but… “i

    A good point — BUT, if that happens to be — and remains — true of a significant portion of a company’s customers, shoving changes down their customers’ unwilling throats isn’t going to be very good business, either.

    Such a company would do well to offer BOTH the New Version, AND the Old Version.

    And, indeed, as you peruse the various software companies Out There, you might be surprised to see how many of them offer “Legacy Versions” of their programs (often for free!).

    See? Sometimes you CAN please most of the people most of the time… uh, just not quite as often as many of us would like. :/

    Reply
    • The problem with offering a new version and the old version menas the company would have to support both versions and that costs a lot of money. And if they support the old and newer versions, that would mean supporting XP, Vista, 7, a couple of flavors of 8, and every version of 10. And maybe even 95, 98, and Millennium.

      Reply
      • Logically you have a point, but in practice I think 98% of us would settle for XP, which they are probably still supporting for paying customers anyway.
        As for the the dreaded Office 2007 ribbon mentioned above, there are other word processors which allow users to choose between a ribbon or traditional interface, and a third party produced an add-on to restore the menus. I just don’t see why Microsoft doesn’t give its users more choice; Windows 8 could have been released with a Start button option and Windows 10 could have a more customizable Start menu, just as XP does offer the “Classic” Start menu as an alternative: these small concessions would deflect a lot of criticism.
        Whether all these questionable initiatives are justified, or due to malice or stupidity is an interesting issue; I am rather less inclined to give MS the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the 70 pieces of spyware they allegedly bundle with Windows 10.

        Reply
        • That’s true. Microsoft could have purchased Classic Shell and a third party app that simulates the classic Office toolbar in a ribbon or similar software. But on the other hand, those interested can get those add-ins for free.

          Reply
      • Logically you have a point, but in practice I think 98% of us would settle for XP, which they are probably still supporting for paying customers anyway.
        As for the the dreaded Office 2007 ribbon mentioned above, there are other word processors which allow users to choose between a ribbon or traditional interface, and a third party produced an add-on to restore the menus. I just don’t see why Microsoft doesn’t give its users more choice; Windows 8 could have been released with a Start button option and Windows 10 could have a more customizable Start menu, just as XP does offer the “Classic” Start menu as an alternative: these small concessions would deflect a lot of criticism.
        Whether all these questionable initiatives are justified, or due to malice or stupidity is an interesting issue; I am rather less inclined to give MS the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the 70 pieces of spyware they allegedly bundle with Windows 10.

        Reply
    • Offering both typically involves SIGNIFICANT additional expense, particularly for something as complex as Windows. Not to mention now all the programs in the world have to deal with “do I or do I not also offer versions for that old version of Windows or the newer ones”?

      “true of a significant portion of a company’s customers” — Aye, there’s the rub. A significant portion of Windows customers are businesses and corporations who are often in need of newer features and functionality to take advantage of their situations or solve their problems more efficiently. That there is a consumer market often feels like a byproduct, not a goal.

      Reply
  12. Just recently, I upgraded to Macrium Reflect 8. Since then there have been several updates to the software as users discovered some things that didn’t work as intended since the release. There is only so much development teams can do to ensure that their company’s product works as intended. They only have a finite number of people to do the testing. After release, that number jumps exponentially and that’s when bugs get found.
    My jaw dropped after one of the updates was released. In the release notes, there was a fix because something didn’t work right for systems using Windows XP.
    The changes that Paramount Software made to Macrium Reflect are a significant improvement over Version 7. This is definitely a case of change for the better.
    On another note, regarding PEBKAC: When I was in the Navy there was a saying:
    ” Engineers can make things waterproof, rustproof, and dustproof, but they have yet to figure out how to make something sailorproof!”
    Applies equally well to computers.

    Reply
  13. //Most news-making large-scale breaches, started with an individual within the affected organization falling for a phishing attack and opening a malicious attachment, or visiting a malicious website.//
    I’ve always instinctively believed that – thanks for the confirmation.

    Reply

Leave a reply:

Before commenting please:

  • Read the article.
  • Comment on the article.
  • No personal information.
  • No spam.

Comments violating those rules will be removed. Comments that don't add value will be removed, including off-topic or content-free comments, or comments that look even a little bit like spam. All comments containing links and certain keywords will be moderated before publication.

I want comments to be valuable for everyone, including those who come later and take the time to read.