Microsoft and Seagate software both fail to back up all Hard Drive files to external HD. What is the cause? (installation, how to)

[CornerstoneEagle04]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Despite your smartassed response to the question asking about "fail" I'm going to post one last response.

Sorry, did not mean to come across as smartassed. Posting the definition of “fail” was the best I could do to convey how clueless I was as to this issue. It’s impossible to define a specific failure when you don’t know what it is.

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

This is not a surprise. When Windows is open operating system files are protected and you can't back them up. That is the reason for the difference in the reported amounts.

Only for those who possess your level of computer knowledge. I would venture to guess that most computer users who encounter this particular situation are just as clueless as I was when it happened to me.

And unfortunately, there’s also a difference in reported amounts between the ‘Documents’, ‘Photos’, ‘Videos’, and ‘Music’ folders of the PC hard drive, and those of the external HD. I know, because I compared the reported amounts of each file individually. It’s not just non-transferrable OS files.

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

Actually, it was a spyware issue. No malware was detected.

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Uh, that's like saying its a pear, not a fruit.

Duly noted. Thanks.

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

…no anti-malware product is 100% effective as the threat is constantly changing. Relying on antivirus software to protect you is like relying on seatbelts to save your life under all circumstances, no matter what.

I understand, and agree that users have a responsibility to protect themselves and not rely on anti-virus/anti-malware software to protect them. However, it shouldn’t be that way. We shouldn’t have to equate these kinds of software to seatbelts because they are supposed to be more reliable than seatbelts. IMO, that’s a completely reasonable expectation. YMMV.

They certainly are marketed as being more effective than they really are, that’s for sure. False advertising, anyone?

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

There's nothing Dork Patrol can do twice a year to change that except maybe make sure your software is current, which is something you can and should do yourself.

Which affirms my suspicion that the guy was lying to me. If I were in his shoes, I would have been up-front and honest. But I do understand his line of thinking: “If I tell this guy he can do what we want to do for him, that will mean less money in my pocket.”

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Defense against malware must be accomplished by other means. Being smart and not gullible and click-happy on the Internet is at least 50% of the job. Another 40% is accomplished by using a non Microsoft web browser and keeping Windows, Acrobat, Java, Flash, and any other plug-ins up to date. Anti-malware is the last 10%.

Yes. This is plain common sense, as I’m sure most would agree. But the problem is that many (if not most) users are simply not aware of just how easily their systems can be infected by viruses/malware. I’m glad you posted the above information, as it’s largely unknown among computer users.

One big problem is that many people think that by simply scanning the internet files they download, any possible security threats will be eliminated. This, as I’ve discovered, is not true. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a mechanism that allows internet files to be scanned prior to downloading. I’m not sure if it’s even possible.

The heightened security of non-Microsoft browsers, however, does seem to be something more people are catching on to. They are certainly more user-friendly and customizable (especially Firefox). The only time I use Microsoft Internet Explorer is when no other browser is available (which seems to be the case for most library computers, unfortunately).

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I have never had a malware infection so no one can tell me users are helpless against it.

This is good to know. I wish more people knew just how much control they have over their own internet security. Hopefully those in need of the information posted here will come across this thread and become more aware.

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Anti-malware software makers do the best they can but by definition, that type of product is reactive. They can only add a piece of malware to their definitions after its discovered. And once malicious code is identified and added to the program's list of things to block, the bad guys simply change their code a little to escape detection.

Then it’s fair to say that the virus and malware proliferators got the edge on software developers in the beginning, and the developers have been playing catch-up ever since. Sometimes I wonder if virus and malware threats were foreseeable prior to the internet becoming open to the public.

My hypothesis is that the government used the same rationale with internet development that it uses with environmental health-related projects: Use the guess-and-check method and if people get sick, claim ignorance. I seriously doubt that DARPANET was fully researched and tested prior to it becoming “the world-wide web.”

Originally Posted by mensaguy

It saves some time and storage space when making backup images of hard disks to eliminate temporary files and swap files from the image. That can account for some difference in sizes.

But I used CCleaner to get rid of the temporary files prior to backup. Perhaps I missed some of them?

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

To use your car analogy, a more accurate question to ask would be "Why do car makers keep researching safety and improving cars when people still drive their products recklessly and kill themselves?"

I would like to agree, but unfortunately it’s not that simple. People know what reckless driving constitutes; it is an easily-recognizable behavior. Not so with risky internet use practices. Just about everyone knows that viruses and malware are out there, but most are unaware of just how easily their systems can get infected. People have a false sense of security when using the internet, the kind of which is not found in the automotive world.

Originally Posted by dfk747

I can't respond to the rest but I can respond to this. What you can do is back up just the files, documents, photos, videos, etc... that you need to an external hard drive. Copy installer files for downloaded programs that you want to keep. Get out the CD/DVDs of programs you want to keep. When you have done that, then go to computer manufacturers site and find which page they have drivers for your system and write down the address from the address bar of your browser (copy it and paste in a the windows word pad or other program and save that file to a usb stick, or print it.) Also copy down license keys for an programs that require them including Windows). After you've got this done, pop in the Windows DVD and restart, booting to the dvd. Follow the program directions to reformat and then reinstall windows. After that, install an antivirus program immediately. Once done, go to the computer manufacturers site you copied down and install the drivers to your computer (there could be quite a few drivers needed). After that run windows update over and over until fully updated. After that, start installing the programs you have CDs/DVDs and the installers you had downloaded for programs you wanted to keep. Once you've finished that you image the drive and save that somewhere. Then start copying back docs, pics, vids, files, etc... that you had saved previously. Open up programs and put in license keys or activate the programs. Point the programs to where the files they need are now stored. Then you can make another image. Your computer will run faster and you will now have two images of your drive for any future malware episode, plus you get rid of junk files you don't need. The above process is not hard, but does take a lot of time.

Originally Posted by dfk747

The above is what I would do, and skip Geeksquad. If you have a bad external drive then get a new one and start fresh. I hope I didn't miss a step, but if you do this I think you will be happy with the results. If you're afraid to do it then... I'm not sure what to advise you.

Concur. I'll do what you’ve suggested, and also bring in the external drive to the new computer shop so they can see if it is, in fact, bad. I trust you got all the steps. If you missed anything, I’m sure someone would have noticed by now.

Thanks for the info!

Originally Posted by dfk747

I suppose some local independent computer shop can help you better than Geek Squad.

That’s what I’m thinking. Hopefully I can find one that is more affordable than Dork Patrol.

Originally Posted by Archineer

It’s microsoft. What do you expect?

Good point. The Microsoft support technician I spoke with claimed the issue is not OS-related, yet failed to discuss how she came to that conclusion. Sorry, but a simple “It’s a hardware issue; Windows 7 is not at fault.” is not good enough. I left the discussion feeling as though the support tech was using the “because I said so” rationale, which is always a big red flag. Especially when the excuse for not discussing the issue further is “I don’t have the license to discuss hardware-related issues with you.” Yeah, right. Give me a break.

[Tek_Freek]

And unfortunately, there’s also a difference in reported amounts between the ‘Documents’, ‘Photos’, ‘Videos’, and ‘Music’ folders of the PC hard drive, and those of the external HD. I know, because I compared the reported amounts of each file individually. It’s not just non-transferrable OS files.

Compare the number of files instead. Even in those directories you might have files that a backup prog can't copy over. It's possible those files are hidden also so you never see them.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

Sorry, did not mean to come across as smartassed. Posting the definition of “fail” was the best I could do to convey how clueless I was as to this issue. It’s impossible to define a specific failure when you don’t know what it is.

I asked that question hoping that you would tell us what error dialogs or messages you were actually seeing.

To say something "failed" is akin to saying your PC is "broken". No details, no fixee...

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

..... I understand, and agree that users have a responsibility to protect themselves and not rely on anti-virus/anti-malware software to protect them. However, it shouldn’t be that way. We shouldn’t have to equate these kinds of software to seatbelts because they are supposed to be more reliable than seatbelts. IMO, that’s a completely reasonable expectation. YMMV.

They certainly are marketed as being more effective than they really are, that’s for sure. False advertising, anyone?

..... Yes. This is plain common sense, as I’m sure most would agree. But the problem is that many (if not most) users are simply not aware of just how easily their systems can be infected by viruses/malware. I’m glad you posted the above information, as it’s largely unknown among computer users.

One big problem is that many people think that by simply scanning the internet files they download, any possible security threats will be eliminated. This, as I’ve discovered, is not true. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a mechanism that allows internet files to be scanned prior to downloading. I’m not sure if it’s even possible.

The heightened security of non-Microsoft browsers, however, does seem to be something more people are catching on to. .....

This is good to know. I wish more people knew just how much control they have over their own internet security. Hopefully those in need of the information posted here will come across this thread and become more aware.

..... Sometimes I wonder if virus and malware threats were foreseeable prior to the internet becoming open to the public.

My hypothesis is that the government used the same rationale with internet development that it uses with environmental health-related projects: Use the guess-and-check method and if people get sick, claim ignorance. I seriously doubt that DARPANET was fully researched and tested prior to it becoming “the world-wide web.” .....

..... People have a false sense of security when using the internet, the kind of which is not found in the automotive world.

..... The Microsoft support technician I spoke with .....

Your expectations of antivirus and anti-malware software are understandable, but not realistic. Software companies responded to the threats by producing software to provide some level of protection. I see people expecting their initial installation to protect them with no updates and expired trial subscriptions. Most advertising makes products appear better than they are. There is nothing unusual about software companies in this regard.

People take steps to maintain things they own all the time. They change furnace filters, change the oil in their car, and a wide range of other things. Why would you expect your computer to be maintenance free?

An up to date virus scanner running On Demand will check files as they come into your computer and flag them before you open the files. You don't have the right to check files on somebody else's web server.

Virus threats were well known before the introduction of the World Wide Web to the general public. I cleaned off computers in the late 1980's.

Since you mentioned the development of the internet as a government project, you should understand that it evolved over many years after WWII, basically as a method to securely share files (and later messages) between defense installation, their contractors and research institutions. Therefore, there were .mil, .com and .edu servers in use from the very beginning. Obviously, security was tight. Much of the interconnectivity started becoming a reality in 1969 when the first ARPANET nodes were created. Eventually the .com members started to use their online presnece for non-defense purposes. Dial-up ISP operation started to show up in 1990, so that was the first time the public really had any access.

Based on that history, why would you think that ARPANET wasn't tested or that it became the WWW? WWW is just one protocol that transports on the Internet. FTP, Gopher, Archie, POP and many others also exist. WWW was deliberately invented in Switzerland and had nothing to do with the federal government.

If people have a false sense of security using the Internet, are you suggesting that we should blame the federal government for not testing and designing it better?

It's not Microsoft's fault either. They were actually a little late starting to really take advantage of the Internet to provide updates and software distribution.

[CornerstoneEagle04]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

An up to date virus scanner running On Demand will check files as they come into your computer and flag them before you open the files. You don't have the right to check files on somebody else's web server.

Question: how does one configure their virus scanner to run On-Demand? Is this option only found on certain AV programs? And when the suspect files are flagged, are they automatically quarantined, or must that be done manually?

Originally Posted by mensaguy

People take steps to maintain things they own all the time. They change furnace filters, change the oil in their car, and a wide range of other things. Why would you expect your computer to be maintenance free?

Apples and oranges. While the principle of personal maintenance responsibility certainly applies, changing a furnace filter or the oil in your car are both a million times more simple and straightforward than maintaining a computer. The only thing computer maintenance has in common with either of those two activities is that it is necessary for the continued proper use of the product.

Yes, it is not realistic for a user to expect his/her computer to be maintenance-free… But it is also unrealistic to expect computer users to know necessary information that is not readily available, yet should be. 9 times out of 10, when a computer runs improperly due to user error, the user has no idea he/she is at fault. Why? Because in most cases the user could not foresee the problem despite his best efforts. That’s jacked-up.

People don’t have time to extensively research the ins and outs of their computers, and shouldn’t >have to<. What users need to know (and I mean everything) should have already been condensed and distilled for them in their user manuals. Most don’t have the know-how to independently ascertain everything a computer user needs to know, despite being entitled to such info (which seems to be a reality the software industry refuses to accept).

It’s like demanding that all airline pilots hold aerospace engineering degrees and be master-rated mechanics on the airframes they fly. Completely absurd.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Virus threats were well known before the introduction of the World Wide Web to the general public.

That’s not surprising. It is a testament to DOD’s ability to hire/utilize well-proven and reputable contractors in the development of ARPANET. Unfortunately, clear heads did not prevail when it came to properly testing and releasing the public version.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Much of the interconnectivity started becoming a reality in 1969 when the first ARPANET nodes were created. Eventually the .com members started to use their online presnece for non-defense purposes. Dial-up ISP operation started to show up in 1990, so that was the first time the public really had any access.

I have to ask: during the time when .com members used their online presence for non-defense purposes, where was DOD? I fail to understand why the .com members were allowed to continually use ARPANET resources for non-defense purposes. And what oversight was devoted to Dial-up ISP operation? Clearly, the Government was more serious about internet security in 1969 than in 1990.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

If people have a false sense of security using the Internet, are you suggesting that we should blame the federal government for not testing and designing it better?

Not entirely. I’m referring only to the Government's testing and development of the public version. The secure version of ARPANET was safer to use than the public one when it came out, and continues to be to this day.

That’s what I meant when I said it wasn’t fully researched and tested.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Based on that history, why would you think that ARPANET wasn't tested or that it became the WWW? WWW is just one protocol that transports on the Internet. FTP, Gopher, Archie, POP and many others also exist. WWW was deliberately invented in Switzerland and had nothing to do with the federal government.

No. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that DOD did not exercise due diligence in ensuring that the public version would, upon release, be as secure for the public as the secure one had been (and still is) for DOD personnel. I know it was researched extensively and optimized to the maximum extent possible, and was developed over a span of many years. However I’m baffled as to why DOD allowed a more risk-averse internet system to be released to the general public.

Given DOD/DARPA’s extensive decades-long research and development of ARPANET, it would >not< have been difficult for the Government to make the public internet as safe and secure as ARPANET. Nor would it have been cost-prohibitive. Time consuming, yes… But if that is what compelled DOD to jump the gun and go ahead with public release anyway, that’s really sad.

Now the keyword is “if”, of course… I’m sure the exact reason remains FOUO for “safe-face” reasons… But whatever the case, the Government’s dereliction in this matter is inexcusable.

Interestingly, DOD is now on the receiving end of their gaffe. Smart phones, which were created in the private sector using government technologies, are currently being considered for use in military operations. The problem? They were not designed well in terms of security. Because of this, the U.S. Army has spent more time and funds on trials and studies than necessary, because of network security issues that should not exist. Hmmm… I wonder why?

Now had the Government fulfilled its fiduciary duty to citizens when it publicly released the internet some 20 years ago, valuable time and taxpayer dollars would not have been wasted in the course of smart phone testing by the military. Not arguing against the testing… It is a necessary and vital component of any project… But it’s sad that not only has the Government disadvantaged people in the area of network security, it has also disadvantaged itself as a direct result. What goes around comes around!

Some links:

--The Army’s Smartphone Problems are Worse than Yours
--Army Tests Smartphones, Tablets for Combat Use
--Army experiments with off-the-shelf smartphones

Regarding WWW... When I said “world wide web” I was referring to the internet at large, not the ‘WWW’ domain. I should have put that in quotes.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I asked that question hoping that you would tell us what error dialogs or messages you were actually seeing.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

To say something "failed" is akin to saying your PC is "broken". No details, no fixee...

Understood. I just wish I had the know-how to give you and others the needed info.

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Compare the number of files instead. Even in those directories you might have files that a backup prog can't copy over. It's possible those files are hidden also so you never see them.

Did that, and there were disparities between the reported amounts there too. If I read you correctly, the reported amount of files on each file of the PC hard drive should be the same as those of their duplicates on the external HD, even if the overall readouts for each drive don’t match.

However, could it be possible that the difference in reported file amounts is due to the hidden files that couldn’t be copied over?

And when you say never see them (the hidden files), do you mean never see them in the reported amount for the file copied over, or the one that was copied?

It would make sense that the difference in reported amounts (for the number of files) results from the non-copied hidden files being hidden from view in the reported amount figures.

[dkf747]

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

[color=#2a2a2a][font=Verdana]
Apples and oranges. While the principle of personal maintenance responsibility certainly applies, changing a furnace filter or the oil in your car are both a million times more simple and straightforward than maintaining a computer. The only thing computer maintenance has in common with either of those two activities is that it is necessary for the continued proper use of the product.

Yes, it is not realistic for a user to expect his/her computer to be maintenance-free… But it is also unrealistic to expect computer users to know necessary information that is not readily available, yet should be. 9 times out of 10, when a computer runs improperly due to user error, the user has no idea he/she is at fault. Why? Because in most cases the user could not foresee the problem despite his best efforts. That’s jacked-up.

People don’t have time to extensively research the ins and outs of their computers, and shouldn’t >have to<. What users need to know (and I mean everything) should have already been condensed and distilled for them in their user manuals. Most don’t have the know-how to independently ascertain everything a computer user needs to know, despite being entitled to such info (which seems to be a reality the software industry refuses to accept).

After reading the above, it seems like you should have gotten a Mac.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

No. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that DOD did not exercise due diligence in ensuring that the public version would, upon release, be as secure for the public as the secure one had been (and still is) for DOD personnel. I know it was researched extensively and optimized to the maximum extent possible, and was developed over a span of many years. However I’m baffled as to why DOD allowed a more risk-averse internet system to be released to the general public.

Given DOD/DARPA’s extensive decades-long research and development of ARPANET, it would >not< have been difficult for the Government to make the public internet as safe and secure as ARPANET. Nor would it have been cost-prohibitive. Time consuming, yes… But if that is what compelled DOD to jump the gun and go ahead with public release anyway, that’s really sad.

Now the keyword is “if”, of course… I’m sure the exact reason remains FOUO for “safe-face” reasons… But whatever the case, the Government’s dereliction in this matter is inexcusable.

Interestingly, DOD is now on the receiving end of their gaffe. Smart phones, which were created in the private sector using government technologies, are currently being considered for use in military operations. The problem? They were not designed well in terms of security. Because of this, the U.S. Army has spent more time and funds on trials and studies than necessary, because of network security issues that should not exist. Hmmm… I wonder why?

Now had the Government fulfilled its fiduciary duty to citizens when it publicly released the internet some 20 years ago, valuable time and taxpayer dollars would not have been wasted in the course of smart phone testing by the military. Not arguing against the testing… It is a necessary and vital component of any project… But it’s sad that not only has the Government disadvantaged people in the area of network security, it has also disadvantaged itself as a direct result. What goes around comes around!

Some links:

--The Army’s Smartphone Problems are Worse than Yours
--Army Tests Smartphones, Tablets for Combat Use
--Army experiments with off-the-shelf smartphones

Regarding WWW... When I said “world wide web” I was referring to the internet at large, not the ‘WWW’ domain. I should have put that in quotes.

The ARPANET project was to establish a data communications network. That's it.

Security (or web security) wasn't even an issue because there was NO SUCH THING.

Just as FTP, email, and most if not all of the TCP/IP suite was never developed with security in mind as it simply wasn't necessary for its use at the time. Just as WiFi wasn't initially developed with security in mind.

I think its stretching it a bit to blame the 1960's DoD for not forseeing cross-site scripting, SQL injection, session hijacking, viruses, facebook hacks etc....

[Tek_Freek]

Did that, and there were disparities between the reported amounts there too. If I read you correctly, the reported amount of files on each file of the PC hard drive should be the same as those of their duplicates on the external HD, even if the overall readouts for each drive don’t match.

However, could it be possible that the difference in reported file amounts is due to the hidden files that couldn’t be copied over?

And when you say never see them (the hidden files), do you mean never see them in the reported amount for the file copied over, or the one that was copied?

It would make sense that the difference in reported amounts (for the number of files) results from the non-copied hidden files being hidden from view in the reported amount figures.

You can change the settings so hidden files, aren't.

Windows Explorer/Tools/View tab/Show hidden files, folders, and drives

[CornerstoneEagle04]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Your expectations of antivirus and anti-malware software are understandable, but not realistic. Software companies responded to the threats by producing software to provide some level of protection. I see people expecting their initial installation to protect them with no updates and expired trial subscriptions. Most advertising makes products appear better than they are. There is nothing unusual about software companies in this regard.

Nor is the public outcry from consumers about the rampant deception. And “appear better” is really not the right way to put it… The most appropriate way to describe this problem is, “Most software companies advertise their products as being more effective than they are.”

Originally Posted by dkf747

After reading the above, it seems like you should have gotten a Mac.

I will, once I figure out how to run Windows 7 in a Mac --independent of Mac-OS-- and configure all the keystrokes to match those of the PC systems.

No one should have to re-learn everything they know just to enjoy the use of a virus/malware-proof computer. Especially given the high price of Mac computers.

Originally Posted by macroy

The ARPANET project was to establish a data communications network. That's it.

Originally Posted by macroy

Security (or web security) wasn't even an issue because there was NO SUCH THING.

Define “security”. Perhaps we are using differing definitions?

A web is a network; whether internal or external, there needs to be a security mechanism in place to protect it from all types of threats. Clearly ARPANET was less secure than it should have been, but I seriously doubt there were no electronic security measures within the system at all. Not knowing much about that, I can certainly say that the non-electronic OPSEC measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the system, and the FOUO information contained therein, were (and still are) some of the best in the world.

Originally Posted by macroy

Just as FTP, email, and most if not all of the TCP/IP suite was never developed with security in mind as it simply wasn't necessary for its use at the time. Just as WiFi wasn't initially developed with security in mind.

That’s no excuse. When you have an entire continent more than happy to wage a nuclear war with you, it’s foolhardy to assume there’s no need for developing/implementing security measures in any area (especially if it's on the basis of “They’re not necessary right now).”

There is never a “not necessary right now”.

Originally Posted by macroy

I think its stretching it a bit to blame the 1960's DoD for not forseeing cross-site scripting, SQL injection, session hijacking, viruses, facebook hacks etc....

You’ve misunderstood what I said. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04

I have to ask: during the time when .com members used their online presence for non-defense purposes, where was DOD? I fail to understand why the .com members were allowed to continually use ARPANET resources for non-defense purposes. And what oversight was devoted to Dial-up ISP operation? Clearly, the Government was more serious about internet security in 1969 than in 1990.

I was complimenting the 1960’s-era DOD, not blaming it. Frankly, had the 60's-era DOD had the means to publicly release ARPANET back then, instead of in the 90's (and done so), the internet we use would be much more secure.

They were just more serious about this. Perhaps it's because the Soviet Union was in full swing in the 1960's, versus winding down in the 90's? The world may never know.

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

You can change the settings so hidden files, aren't.

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Windows Explorer/Tools/View tab/Show hidden files, folders, and drives

Okay, thanks.

[mensaguy]

My comments are in BOLD below.

[quote=CornerstoneEagle04;21978610]Nor is the public outcry from consumers about the rampant deception. And “appear better” is really not the right way to put it… The most appropriate way to describe this problem is, “Most software companies advertise their products as being "more effective than they are.”

There is no deception. Perhaps your expectations are higher than many, but that is the was software is sold. Regardless of your viewpoints, software makers sell imperfect products and sometimes issue updates. Since most people seem to accept this, I doubt you can gather much support for calling it deceptive business practice.

<snip>

A web is a network; whether internal or external, there needs to be a security mechanism in place to protect it from all types of threats. Clearly ARPANET was less secure than it should have been, but I seriously doubt there were no electronic security measures within the system at all. Not knowing much about that, I can certainly say that the non-electronic OPSEC measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the system, and the FOUO information contained therein, were (and still are) some of the best in the world.

When ARPANET was built, it was as secure as it needed to be. The Internet was already public when the first web browser (Mosaic) and HTML were introduced. You certainly don't have to like it, or even understand it, but please accept it when veterans of the IT world tell you the truth.
That’s no excuse. When you have an entire continent more than happy to wage a nuclear war with you, it’s foolhardy to assume there’s no need for developing/implementing security measures in any area (especially if it's on the basis of “They’re not necessary right now).”

Why not? The power plants, defense installations, banks and government networks all exercise appropriate security measures. Many IT professionals have used the term oxymoron when referring to "network security" because most security measures are taken somewhere besides the networking equipment itself, such as servers, although most networks have a secure firewall between themselves and the Internet. The federal government has very little to do with the operation of the Internet since it turned over the registration of domain names to ICANN in1998. Who should develop what security measures, anyway?

There is never a “not necessary right now

You’ve misunderstood what I said. Here it is again:

I was complimenting the 1960’s-era DOD, not blaming it. Frankly, had the 60's-era DOD had the means to publicly release ARPANET back then, instead of in the 90's (and done so), the internet we use would be much more secure.

They never did publicly release anything. They simply allowed the use of interconnectivity that existed to be used for non-defense purposes. Those things you probably consider insecure (scripting, adware, etc.) did not exist prior to the debut of the World Wide Web.

They were just more serious about this. Perhaps it's because the Soviet Union was in full swing in the 1960's, versus winding down in the 90's? The world may never know.

I'm fairly certain that the USSR had nothing to do with development of the Internet, or was any concern to those entities working with the Defense Industries at that time.