I erred in saying that Geer represented himself, or the report, as speaking for @stake.
There's a lot more that I'm tempted to say, but I think Roberta Bragg said it better in her column yesterday. Rather than muddle her arguments, I refer interested readers to http://mcpmag.com/security; the column's not posted there yet but should be shortly. Cheers, -Paul > From: InfoSec News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: InfoSec News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 05:18:54 -0500 (CDT) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ISN] Technology Firm With Ties to Microsoft Fires Executive Over > Criticism > > Forwarded from: Jason Coombs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];, [EMAIL PROTECTED];, > [EMAIL PROTECTED];, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > InfoSec News wrote: >> Forwarded from: Paul Robichaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 1. Geer claimed to be speaking for @stake. He wasn't. > > I do hope that all of you actually read the report before forming any > opinions about it, the people who wrote it, or the manner in which > those people portrayed themselves as authors of it. It is simply > impossible to interpret Geer's role in authoring this report as > anything close to "speaking for @Stake" -- it was clearly the > "speaking" part that got him canned, and one need not be paranoid in > order to see Microsoft's direct or indirect influence in the growing > "punishment for speech" phenomenon within the United States. @Stake's > own political bias in advancing the so-called "responsible disclosure" > process is a crucial element of criminalizing speech... We can't put > speakers in prison unless we can prove that they violated the rules > with their speech, so @Stake is busy trying to define the rules. > > The whole business makes me feel sick. What we really need is freedom, > and the ability to defend ourselves adequately from anyone who might > choose to exercise theirs in a way that doesn't conform to other > people's arbitrary definition of "responsible". There was a time in > the past when there was little doubt that we had freedom. > > Freedom must be one of the costs of monopoly. > > CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly > How the Dominance of Microsoft's Products Poses a Risk to Security > http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf > > Sincerely, > > Jason Coombs > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org > > To unsubscribe email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe isn' > in the BODY of the mail. > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
