[Full-Disclosure] Re: [ISN] Technology Firm With Ties to Microsoft Fires Executive Over Criticism

From: Paul Robichaux (paul_at_robichaux.net)
Date: 09/30/03

  • Next message: Nexus: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] More on Dan Geer" 
    To: InfoSec News <isn@c4i.org>, <Dan_Verton@computerworld.com>, <jasonc@science.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:41:03 -0400

    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

  • Next message: Nexus: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] More on Dan Geer"

    Relevant Pages