RE: University of South Carolina e-Mail CompromisesStudentIDs

["Justin Polazzo" <jpolazzo () thesportsauthority com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of David Lodge
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:07:57 +0200, Black Ops Security
<x () blackopssec com>
wrote:
I shouldn't reply; but for Loki's sake this is getting ridiculous.
Before I go and explain why it's related to InfoSec, I will make one
point:
-------------------------------

By Thor's Banjo, you had better!

-------------------------------

It's called a firearm. A gun is something you use to blow holes in
walls.  
It's a word that should join words like "got" and "stuff" in the never
to be used formally area.
-------------------------------

So if I got my stuff with my gun, well I just shouldn't tell anyone
about it?

-------------------------------

Now, the whole issue about firearm regulation is about risk management:

how do we reduce the risk that an incident should not result in an
illegal loss of life? The UK view was/is that putting tight regulation
on the use and ownership of firearms is a sensible mitigation factor.
Note, the UK does not ban firearms - both my mother and brother are
licensed to transport firearms and take ranges; I used to be within the
top 500 shots for full-bore rifles in the UK; farmers can still own
shotguns etc.

Anybody can kill another human with any weapon (even their thumbs). The
aim is to reduce the 'red-mist descends' opportunity which takes many
lives. Firearms *are* dangerous - they offer a disjunction between the
action and the result, the mitigator is appropiate training into
handling and the effects. Just like you need a licence and a test to
drive a car, you should pass a certain standard ere you can own and use
firearms.

Using country stereotypes, posting links to obvious idiots (who can't
even read history books), posting links to google where you get an out
of context article and blogs discussing it, using statistics out of
context without regarding other factors are *not* constructive and do
little to progress a discussion other than seeming like you're bickering
like school children.

So to sum up and try and kill the thread, so that we can get onto taking
the piss out of Oracle/Microsoft/Cisco's security:
1. The UK system has strong regulation on firearms.
2. The US system has weak regulation on firearms.
3. Both countries have problems with violent crime.
4. There are parts in both countries I wouldn't go after dark.

Finish. Argument over: it's getting circular.

--------------------------------------------

Ok, no tie in to infosec. Sounds more like a Finnish Argument ;-)

-JP

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.