[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3F7888C4.9070102@science.org>
From: jasonc at science.org (Jason Coombs)
Subject: Re: [ISN] Technology Firm With Ties to Microsoft Fires Executive
Over Criticism
InfoSec News wrote:
> Forwarded from: Paul Robichaux <paul@...ichaux.net>
> 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
jasonc@...ence.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists