Microsoft expands 'shared source' effort

TalkBack 50 of 89:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

DTS: A couple of points...

(Darned Threading System really limits the number of exchanges that can be made to a post. I think we sould start putting "DTS:"in the subject, when we need to start a new interior thread to complete an existing one? Sound good to anyonelse?)

I believe you mentioned an NDA earlier and perhaps that puts you into the category of neither being able to confirm nor deny any questions put to you. That's reasonable to claim, but the claim does put you in an awkward position - you cannot speak with authority, because you cannot give evidence of authority. I have rewritten and negotiated strictures in every NDA, IP assignation, and non-compete that has crossed my palms in the last twenty years. I've even turned down some offers because of the inflexibility of certain documents. I can empathise with your plight.

Respectfully, if we as citizens must accept certain authoritarian measures, which limit our behaviors, but create a more secure country; should we accept anything less from Microsoft? Should not Microsoft have to surrender some of their corporate freedoms of who they trust to ensure national security? Saying it's none of your/my business or they're-a-private-entity;-you-can't-tell-them-what-to-do, is a cop-out. A corporation has rights under the law, and has resposibilities as well. One of those responsibilities is not to purposefully or inadvertently give aid and comfort to the enemy.

One cannot blame the needful assumption of that responsibility by Microsoft on me or the Open Source movement or indeed anyone: Microsoft lobbed this petard themselves! Microsoft claimed the revelation of their code is a threat to national security. They therefore have a due diligence requirement to respect their own claim and implement formalisms in support of that claim to document trust.

There need only be one worm employed at Microsoft, or trusted in the MVP program to put national security at risk through Microsoft's code. Microsoft may trust their MVPs, but without a process comparable to the vetting process for viewing documents that may risk national security, how can Microsoft document a reason for their faith and trust? Considering the risks and our governments' dependence on Microsoft's products, and the possibility of infiltration through the MVP program, is it not "our business" to demand a trustworthy process from Microsoft?

Let's leave all these questions as rhetorical, shall we? We can iterate them until midnight, but it won't give us a ten from the judges.

Thank you for an interesting thread!

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 10/23/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now