Security Incidents mailing list archives

Re: A question for the list...


From: "Jay D. Dyson" <jdyson () treachery net>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Jimi Thompson wrote:

And who gets to choose who gets on the Internet-version of the WHO?
Who pays for it?  What if I'm Chinese and everyone on there is from the
USA?  I might not want a bunch of foreign nationals telling me I have to
install software "or else".  What if I'm the USA and everyone on there
is from Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Libya?  I might not want the software
they are offering either.  You set us on a slippery slope.

        I think it's safe to say that we can skip any ideas of a world
governing body (apart from technical standards) on any part of the
Internet.  Setting specs on hardware is one thing; setting specs on
operation only gets people ornery.

I personally favor litigation.

        Such an approach serves no purpose but to punish consumers in this
increasingly turbo-litigious world.  Whenever a business is sued, that
just cuts into their bottom line and that of their insurer's.  As a
consequence, we (the end users and consumers) see increased fees for the
same service from both the defendant business and their insurance firm so
that they can underwrite the cost of the lawyers, lawsuits and the
resulting awards/penalties.

        Bottom line: the 'net was built in a time when all participants
played nice in the sandbox.  The very foundations of the networks on which
we rely are absent any sense of security paranoia.  Neither laws nor
lawsuits will solve this.

        What is the solution?  Beats me...but I guarantee you that we
won't EVER solve this 21st century problem using 20th century tactics.

- -Jay

   (    (                                                        _______
   ))   ))   .-"There's always time for a good cup of coffee"-.   >====<--.
 C|~~|C|~~| (>----- Jay D. Dyson -- jdyson () treachery net -----<) |    = |-'
  `--' `--'  `------- There is no patch for stupidity. -------'  `------'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (TreacherOS)
Comment: See http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ for current keys.

iD8DBQE+zmL5Nlg1oZSC9mkRAhPRAJ9ma+s21JI0hVAsOs2gb6dVYEn38QCeOBzd
+jmBJX+49Bkn9ter0M07uPM=
=d0NA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Wireless LAN Policies for Security & Management - NEW White Paper ***
Just like wired networks, wireless LANs require network security policies 
that are enforced to protect WLANs from known vulnerabilities and threats. 
Learn to design, implement and enforce WLAN security policies to lockdown enterprise WLANs.

To get your FREE white paper visit us at:    
http://www.securityfocus.com/AirDefense-incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: