full-disclosure - RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200304200811.h3K8B7uS000256@caligula.anu.edu.au>
From: avalon at caligula.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
Subject: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding

In some mail from yossarian, sie said:
> 
> > In some mail from Paul Schmehl, sie said:
> > >
> > > But that's his privilege.  If he chooses to express his thoughts in that
> > > way, he has every right to do so.  That's precisely what freedom is.
> >
> > But a person in so doing must be prepared to respect the rights and
> > well being of others or in infringing upon them, be prepared to pay
> > duely for it if suffering is endured by others and so we have laws
> > that define libel, defamation, official secrecy acts, etc, that might
> > seem to be at odds with "freedom of speech" but in essence, aim to
> > uphold what it is there for in the first place - to make life better
> > and easier for all.
> 
> Is "them" including corporate interests if they conflict with personal
> freedom? Probably, since the companies = the shareholders = people.....
> Are you including DMCA / Patriot Act / etc.?

What have they got to do with this ?  Nothing so far as I can see.

> Is this including being
> prepared for being put in the slammer since someone in uniform dislikes what
> you put on your T-shirt? Funny how judicial people get to work around the
> principle of freedom of speech. How many here went to law school? Speech is
> not necessarily verbal.
> 
> BTW, whose wellbeing is suffering by Theo's statement? If you are that
> sensitive, forget the Internet and travel abroad.

My comments were not specific to this particular instance of implied
impairment of free speech but rather to point out that with it comes
the responsibility of speaking in a fair and wise manner and that if
you are careless with your words then expecting the notion of "free"
speech to protect you is somewhat naive.

Darren