On 9/04/12 13:33 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2012-04-09 10:17 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
I'd put most of it down to conflicting agendas -- even people
you regard as "evil" don't see themselves that way; they
simply have a different definition -- agenda -- for "good".
An agenda which requires them to lie about what they believe, stack
committees, falsify the evidence, and personally destroy, Alinsky style,
those who mention inconvenient truths.
I think there is a widespread misconception about committees. People
think they are there to create good results. I think that is wrong. I
think they are there to stop outright wars in foisting bad results on an
unwitting public.
As a step up from outright commercial war, if they can be kept polite
and safe then that's as much as we can expect. The fact that companies
are likely to send their best (cough) "politicians" into the committee
to get their deals is a given.
It's what they get paid for. You asking for something different is
perhaps your error.
One can disagree on the likelihood or
impact of a vulnerability, but generally not its existence,
until the audience is politicians.
The probability that the audience is politicians tends to increase with
the size of the meeting.
Even a committee of 2 requires delicate political skills... :) Beyond
2, calling it "political" is perhaps being overly polite with the truth.
iang
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
