-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Now that is a very reasonable argument that I am inclined to agree with, and it opens up an entirely new avenue of debate on the matter ;-)
Thank you for your time and attention, ======================== Brad Bemis ======================== > From: Dehner, Benjamin T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I can see this as just the opposite. Microsoft can use the "homeland > security" classification as an argument against > full-disclosure free speach, > thus prohibiting discussion, criticism, and publication of > security flaws of > Microsoft products. This is, after all, the company who's licensing > agreement forbids using off-the-shelf software for > benchmarking purposes, > and who's non-disclosure-agreements with public institutions are > unreviewable because the terms of those agreements are covered by > non-disclosure. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQA/AwUBPxWeApDnOfS48mrdEQIStwCfYiViI6JZpjB9UElyZurYcsj+EnUAnjDf oGJ8vi3JkpHbxfqs5arZAkwE =KZHy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
