I apologize for misstating your name, Mr. Simon.

I thought I had answered your question. No one asked me to reply to Ruptor, or to you -- and you chose the tone of this exchange. As I said, I would be shocked if anyone at RSA or EMC even knows about this discussion.

No one tells me what to post, or when to post. I've been doing this for a long time, and while I have to honor common-sense guidelines about secrets and upcoming products, I operate pretty independently when it comes to what I publish on the Net.

My words are my own -- but when it is on-topic, I try to offer RSA's perspective, if I know it, along with the facts, as I know them. Personally, I think discussions here, and elsewhere online, would be a lot more constructive if vendors did not shun the Net's open forums. I'm grateful that RSA gives me leave to talk publicly about their products and technologies. If I sound prideful in discussing those products, as Mr. Simon says, in some cases I've been working on them for decades.

I rarely initiate a discussion about RSA's products or technology. As in this case, I almost always respond to questions, claims, or comments from others --- and the tone of these discussions is almost always set by others. I generally just try to be helpful and informative; relatively low-key.

Given my history, of course, it is also true that the product managers and others at RSA now expect me to contribute to any major online discussion about the RSA products. (I sometimes I decide it is counterproductive to do so.) No one at RSA told me to get into the SID800 debate, but they were certainly not surprised when I showed up to ask about it. As an internal consultant to RSA, I had some say in defining the SID800's evolving product specs. Some of what I suggested was adopted, some not. Online, I tried to talk about the goals of the SID800 product that was the result of the process, the balance it struck between security and accessibility, and offered my interpretation of how it fit within the market.

Generally speaking, I don't expect to convert someone like Ruptor or Thor -- who start with a strong bias about a particular product -- so I try to address myself to the much larger community that just reads a forum like this. I don't think anyone gains points with objective observers by being nasty or arrogant; I think you gain credibility by being honestly informative and helpful. I try.

Suerte,
           _Vin

  ---------------------- in  response to ----------------

Thor Lancelot Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>

I'll try again: yes, you've identified yourself as a consultant to RSA.
When you have posted here, both in this most recent thread and in other
threads, in particular the SecurID 800 thread, has it been at your own
behest, or that of RSA?

In other words, when you post here defending RSA products against
criticism, often with very emphatic language and in a way that belittles
the person making the criticism rather than engaging with the actual
technical critique, can we assume that it is not the case that RSA
asked you to do so?  Or is it, in fact, sometimes the case that RSA
asks you to post about their products here, and thus we should read your
words as being RSA's words?

<snip>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to