On Wed May 19 2004 18:12, Andrew Graupe wrote: > bogi wrote: > >http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/05/19/computer.security.ap/index.html > > > >A good reading, specially for usability and security groups and > > developers. Cheers > >Szemir > > <snip> > easy-of-use, security, and a large number of features. In my > experience, security is not a set destination; it is different for > everyone.
Adding to Andrews thoughts... Further to the security/accessibility continuum principle is the idea of "security as a process". It's never a finished product. Commentary on the article... Making "cybersecurity" real is at odds with the "capitalism" that brought pervasive computing and Microsoft ubiquity to market. How would we like to see government-mandated limitations on numbers of each deployed OS? "Sorry, you can't use Linux because it would form a quorum majority over the anti-monoculture policy limits. Instead, you get to use... let's see: BeOS. Yes, we know it's not developed or supported, but that's what's left on the list." ;-P I sincerely hope that this is not just another cry for a new/different "security" scapegoat (since blaming end users hasn't worked out). The final 2 paragraphs are accurate and telling: ------------ "Cybersecurity is everyone's responsibility, including the vendors, the users, enterprises and government agencies," said Greg Garcia of the Information Technology Association of America, one of the industry's leading trade groups. <snip> Both groups, however, said they oppose government mandates on security. ------------ As long as security is voluntary and optional, it isn't. :-P That's largely because the need for security is a human problem, not a technological one. My 2 cents, Curtis _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
