Security's Everyman

Security's Everyman

Monday, August 06, 2007

I'm confused (or one of my readers is)

When I started blogging I decided that I would not be a "fan boi" for a vendor and that I would speak my mind and always try to get my facts straight before I wrote about anything. I also decided that I would post all comments provided they weren't spam or of a obscene and vulgar nature. Well I received a comment today on my "Open Letter to the WSJ" post and I've decided not to post it in the comments section. I'm going to post it here. I'm doing that for 2 reasons. First, whoever wrote the comment decided to submit it anonymously and secondly it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I thought maybe some of you could add some insight into what in the world he/she is talking about.

Yes, I'm certain that our having casualties over there is entirely the fault of the Post and the Times outing every operation (or Geraldo on Faux News), and has nothing to do with our military and our government simply not having sufficient planning or men involved to properly control the dismantling of another country.

If the 'secret details' they inform us about happen to be against the law, or violations of our civil rights, then they are doing what they should, making the citizenry aware of inappropriate behavior on the behalf of their government. Are you guys all for such behavior?

That's just like encouraging people to skirt the rules, precisely what you are castigating this reporter for doing. Yet you are applauding the government for doing it?

  • I can vaguely understand the connection between papers posting reports about troop movements and the WSJ posting ways to subvert network security.
  • Apparently the reader assumes that I and most of my information security and blog friends are in favor of the war and think alike regarding it and politics. I can assure you that there are many of my security/blog friends that are on opposite sides of the fence from me in regards to politics, the war, social issues, etc..... (I'm getting this from his comment "Are you guys all for such behavior?")
  • It seems that the reader thinks that I am being double minded in regards to media coverage of political events and such. I applaud them when they say what I want and chide them when they say something that I don't like. I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever written about anything political. I make a very conscious effort to not do so.
If anyone has any insight into this please let me know. If the person who wrote this wants to clarify I sure would appreciate it. At first I thought that maybe he/she meant to post it to some other site, but I don't think so.

I'm also making a modification to my comment rules. I will continue to post all comments, positive or negative, as long as those who have negative comments (especially off the wall ones) will identify themselves. The way I look at it is if you have something negative to say and you don't want to identify yourself then you can find another place to make negative comments.


djhowse said...

Looks like a continuation of previous comments on the WSJ article:

Michael said...

No big surprise here -- the New York Times and the Washington Post have been releasing secret details on the war on terror and on our troop movements for years. In the early 1940s this would have been called treason; today the wimps call it freedom of the press.

Andy, ITGuy said...

Michael, I agree with you. We have gotten too soft on such things. And they wonder why we continue to have causalities over there and then whine about it.

Andy, ITGuy said...

DJ, Fair enough. I had not remembered about this comment. I hardly think that this qualifies as blaming all the causalities on the publishing of details in the news as the previous comment suggests. To clarify I was referring to how as a nation we have gotten to soft in many areas which has led to problems all around. I do see how the conclusion was drawn though. If you would care to discuss off line feel free to hit the "email me" link and we can share our thoughts. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NC-SA 3.0.