Gotta agree. That wording is not quite the same thing as saying 'there are no back doors'. On balance, however, I usually impugn such wobbly subtext to imprecise verbiage, not to finely crafted misdirection. I give IBM a pass on the statement. But then again, I'm easy.
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 1:01 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: IBM Why be terrified? If IBM is as good as they claim regarding security, they should welcome looky-loos with secret cameras in their eyeglasses. "IBM does not provide government access to client data or back doors into our technology" (IBM statement to Reuters) Oops, did IBM just say that there are back doors? Need a former English teacher's help with commas. Skip? Bigendian Smalls wrote: > Positively terrifying. I know large companies often get to review > unthinkable source code, because of the risks this article states. But a > foreign government, and China no less - seems risky. I’m sure it is done > ‘eyes only’ and they don’t actually get to keep a copy. But still, stealing > IP would be the one bad outcome - finding ugly undisclosed vulnerabilities > quite another. > > >>On Oct 16, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Lance D. Jackson >><ljack...@pandrueassociates.com> wrote: >> >>This is disturbing: >>http://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-allows-chinese-government-to-review-so >>urce-code-1444989039 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
