[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1115159469.4517.26.camel@banquo.ches.mailcentre.org.uk>
Date: Wed May 4 00:12:29 2005
From: peter at whole-uk.com (Pete Barnwell)
Subject: Blair is more important than network security?
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 11:28, Jan Meijer wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, n3td3v wrote:
>
> > This is a good thread. On the ITSafe website (a new security advisory
> > site setup by uk.gov) it says the following...
> >
> >
> > "
> > ITsafe News Issue 2005/02
> >
> > The normal plan is for ITsafe News to be published on a monthly basis.
> >
> > The April 2005 Issue has been withheld due to restrictions on
> > publication of new material by Government Departments during the
> > General Election, as detailed in the Cabinet Office guidance document.
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> > Great stuff isn't it? This kinda goes to show UK gov is setup wrong
> > with regards to internet security...
> > Another reason *not* to vote for Blair?
>
> Elections are a sensitive period in a democracy. If you want to know what
> can happen if that period is not treated as such, have a look at what
> happens in lots of African countries. And mind you, elections that go
> wrong can result in bodyparts flying around after which the state of the
> Internet rapidly becomes less important.
>
> It would seem like someone has decided that the balance between the
> benefit the ITSafe publication and the possibly disturbing efect it might
> have on the election (might have something to do with the thing going live
> in Feb 2005? Maybe it is therefor classified as 'new program'?) weight
> heavier towards the election process.
>
> Then again, it might be part of an overall plot by Mr. Blair's
> spindoctors to curtail publications as much as possible.
>
> One never knows. Glad I don't have to vote in .uk.
You don't have to - chances are somebody else has already applied for a
postal vote in your name...
Pete
Powered by blists - more mailing lists