On Thu May 20 2004 17:49, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On May 19, 2004 08:23, Curtis Sloan wrote: > > Further to the security/accessibility continuum principle is the idea of > > "security as a process". It's never a finished product. > > indeed. > > > Making "cybersecurity" real is at odds with the "capitalism" that brought > > pervasive computing and Microsoft ubiquity to market. > > how so? it may be at odds with Microsoftian marketing practices, but > Microsoft isn't the only incarnation of the capitalistic model in the tech > industry. the two are no synonymous, in fact one might even argue that > Microsoft is NOT capatalistic at all but a virtual oligarchy. even the > Kings and Churches of old made money (and often great stupid gobs of it), > but that characteristic alone did not make them "captalists".
I actually agree with you on this point. I probably should have taken a moment to better convey my intended meanings behind "cybersecurity" and "capitalism" (perhaps <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags over double quotes ;-). Essentially, these terms as bandied about by government and industry organizations seem to have corrupted into a kind of lingo suitable for agenda-driven policy. What goes on behind the cover of those words hardly resembles what was originally intended when the words were created. Ergo, <sarcasm>cybersecurity</sarcasm> and <sarcasm>capitalism</sarcasm> actually don't go hand-in-hand since the so-called capitalism of today (as you say, really a handful of ultra-powerful players) doesn't really lend itself to diversity, authenticity or quality. Shiny crap sells and that's what matters. Apparently. And my commentary is that, frankly, I find it disgusting and hope very much for the things you have detailed in this and further replies to this thread. Thanks, Aaron. Food for thought is yummy. :-) Curtis _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
