Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding
From: "Curt Purdy" <purdy () tecman com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:03:42 -0500
Course "them" includes Micro$oft who claims that the use of the term "_NSAKEY" in all their OS's since W95/NT4 was "an unfortunate use of words"... Curt -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com]On Behalf Of yossarian Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 6:47 AM To: Darren Reed Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding
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.
A lot. Under patriot act, bookstores can be asked to inform authorities who buys what books. This can and does include books we in the security industry consider must have reads. It might include a new book on hardening IIS, considered 'unfair' and 'not wise' by MS - whatever the reasons. Under this legislation, knowledge can be considered a WMD, and the population must be datamined. If you break in to the connection your fritz chip opens to see what info it sends on your computer use - i.e. want to know how far your privacy is invaded - you break DMCA. If your behavioural patterns match a predefined risky lifestyle ... enter demonisation.
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.
Who is to decide what is fair and wise? Limiting free speech by these non-defined values to be decided on by undefined external parties is imho very dangerous, so a statement believing you have free speech, so can say and think anything you like, as long as it is fair and wise, is naive at best. What i think is fair, my be considered unfair by others, which it probably is. The "Responsibility to be Fair and Wise' thingie may sound ligit, but are the ultimate weapons for self-censorship, which is much more effective and never illegal, than government led censorship. Relate self censorship to the forum you are on, plz. As an author on security issues, you will not disclose on vulns in certain systems, since it is not wise, since it is a threat to national security, but you will on other systems. Why? cause they are not used by the government. Wait a minute, you cannot just 'not disclose' on systems used by the government, but also that of its 'willing' allies, so don't disclose on these either. Lemme give you another thought - disclosing on security flaws in any US software is allowing economic warfare against the US - let us only disclose on say, russian, french and german software. Oh, well, and on Syrian, North Korean and Iranian software. There isn't any worthwile software from these countries? And if there is, it is probably used by the US, one of it's allies or a corporation in one of these countries. Corporations? Yes, damage to say, MS, is major damage to the american economy, so it is damage against its national interests = security. Well then, let us be responsible people, let us not disclose at all, close this list, get a haircut and a real job. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Jason Coombs (Apr 18)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Paul Schmehl (Apr 18)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding yossarian (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Paul Schmehl (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Darren Reed (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding yossarian (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Darren Reed (Apr 20)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding yossarian (Apr 20)
- RE: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Curt Purdy (Apr 20)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Darren Reed (Apr 20)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding yossarian (Apr 20)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding riki (Apr 21)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Darren Reed (Apr 21)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding riki (Apr 22)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding yossarian (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Paul Schmehl (Apr 18)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Cptnug (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Denis Dimick (Apr 19)
- RE: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Ed Carp (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Shawn McMahon (Apr 20)
- RE: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Ed Carp (Apr 20)