[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       full-disclosure
Subject:    [Full-Disclosure] Re: [ISN] Technology Firm With Ties to Microsoft Fires Executive
From:       Paul Robichaux <paul () robichaux ! net>
Date:       2003-09-30 18:41:03
[Download RAW message or body]

I erred in saying that Geer represented himself, or the report, as speaking
for @stake. 

There's a lot more that I'm tempted to say, but I think Roberta Bragg said
it better in her column yesterday. Rather than muddle her arguments, I refer
interested readers to http://mcpmag.com/security; the column's not posted
there yet but should be shortly.

Cheers,
-Paul

> From: InfoSec News <isn@c4i.org>
> Reply-To: InfoSec News <isn@c4i.org>
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 05:18:54 -0500 (CDT)
> To: isn@attrition.org
> Subject: Re: [ISN] Technology Firm With Ties to Microsoft Fires Executive Over
> Criticism 
> 
> Forwarded from: Jason Coombs <jasonc@science.org>
> Cc: paul@robichaux.net;, Dan_Verton@computerworld.com;,
>  rforno@infowarrior.org;, full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
> 
> InfoSec News wrote:
>> Forwarded from: Paul Robichaux <paul@robichaux.net>
>> 1. Geer claimed to be speaking for @stake. He wasn't.
> 
> I do hope that all of you actually read the report before forming any
> opinions about it, the people who wrote it, or the manner in which
> those people portrayed themselves as authors of it. It is simply
> impossible to interpret Geer's role in authoring this report as
> anything close to "speaking for @Stake" -- it was clearly the
> "speaking" part that got him canned, and one need not be paranoid in
> order to see Microsoft's direct or indirect influence in the growing
> "punishment for speech" phenomenon within the United States. @Stake's
> own political bias in advancing the so-called "responsible disclosure"
> process is a crucial element of criminalizing speech... We can't put
> speakers in prison unless we can prove that they violated the rules
> with their speech, so @Stake is busy trying to define the rules.
> 
> The whole business makes me feel sick. What we really need is freedom,
> and the ability to defend ourselves adequately from anyone who might
> choose to exercise theirs in a way that doesn't conform to other
> people's arbitrary definition of "responsible". There was a time in
> the past when there was little doubt that we had freedom.
> 
> Freedom must be one of the costs of monopoly.
> 
> CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly
> How the Dominance of Microsoft's Products Poses a Risk to Security
> http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jason Coombs
> jasonc@science.org
> 
> 
> 
> -
> ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org
> 
> To unsubscribe email majordomo@attrition.org with 'unsubscribe isn'
> in the BODY of the mail.
> 

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]