Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: MS04-025 - Ignorance is truly bliss....

From: Barry Fitzgerald (
Date: 08/06/04

  • Next message: Ron DuFresne: "[Full-Disclosure] perhaps outsourcing needs a closer look by some companies;;"
    To:, Ann <>
    Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:48:47 -0400

    >On Thursday, 5 August 2004, hellNbak wrote:
    >The Internet is no longer a world of hippie hacker idealists, but quite simply
    >a global market. Because of lack of centralized authority overseeing it
    >(wasn't that what you fought for?), it is a wild style economy, often driven
    >by shoddy practices and cutting corners where customers won't notice, or
    >marketing on the verge of deceit. This is how we do big business - honesty,
    >altruism, and respect for ideals were never its strong sides, unless you
    >could get a tax break doing those.
    I agree with this...

    >But then, were the Internet and IT security still merely a hobby of a bunch
    >of enthusiasts, you wouldn't be getting your paycheck, would you?
    I disagree here -- unless you're going to try to prove that those who
    created this technology weren't paid. We have tons of example of
    so-called "hippy idealists" getting paid relatively large sums of money
    for their work over the past 30+ years.

    >benefit from these changes, with all their side effects. You tell your
    >customers to buy products, not to distrust the system, to uncloak treasons,
    >or banish false prophets. You tell them what they want to hear, then cash
    >the check so that you can afford to write rants about how the world should
    >be. The problem with socialist utopias where all do their jobs best, and get
    >exactly what they deserve, is that they all seem to fail quite miserably
    >(how odd). Unjust exploitation, trickery to claim undeserved credibility or
    >recognition, commercialization of everything you can capitalize on - that's
    >what makes a country (or an industry) great.
    First of all, there hasn't been a single "socialist utopia" that actual
    subscribed to it's own stated ideals.

    All of the supposed Socialist/Communist systems were fascist-style
    command economies which had much more in common with global capitalism
    than they ever did their socialist roots. So, I fail to see the
    comparison. The assumptions you're making are very Ayn Rand in their
    style... meaning that you're making the one capital failure that most
    cold-war economists made: that one could simply believe the propaganda
    laid out by groups on both sides of the economic ideological debate.

    Reality, as has been slowly exposed, is much more complex.

    The same is true of the Internet. Without the idealists the
    anarcho-capitalists that you're lauding here would never have been able
    to take root as they did. We, the idealistic, want a playground for all
    with respect for those around you -- meanwhile, they want to smother all
    who stand in their way of getting profit, be they competition,
    idealists, or their own users.

    I suppose the old saying must surely be true: there is a sucker born
    every minute. Because without that fact, the anarcho-capitalists of the
    world would have been exposed long ago.

    Profit and resource-gain are ultimately generated through the economic
    system operating properly. This means that the tools of the economic
    system must operate properly. The wheeling and dealing and excuse
    making of the anarcho-capitalists may make significant profits for them
    short term, but long term we all pay a much heavier price. This is the
    story that is told in the so-called "socialist utopias" that you cite --
    they didn't fail because they were socialist, they failed because their
    leaders were frauds who cared more for their own short-term profit than
    they did the long-term sustainability of the state.

    The system that you're discussing above will ultimately succumb to it's
    own weight. It is an inevitable law of economics.

    >What do you hope to achieve, or how do you believe your opinion is being
    >relevant or novel, if you come to this audience, and state that CERT is no
    >longer credible, and is a bunch of crooks who live off selling advance
    >vulnerability warnings? Or that Microsoft is not exactly particularly devoted
    >to improving security of their products and protecting their customers?
    A better question is what does anyone hope to achieve by griping about
    something? Perhaps increasing the rate of change?


    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: Ron DuFresne: "[Full-Disclosure] perhaps outsourcing needs a closer look by some companies;;"