Re: [BOARD] Dissenting opinion on CyberCrime treaty statement
Scott Lawler wrote:
>[...]However, I think it's
>important to keep in mind that the purpose of this statement is to
Yes, that's why I dissented. I'm not concerned. ;) My belief
is that in order to make the particular situation (full disclosure
and how it's being mis-applied today) better, we have to make it
lots worst, first. I've become somewhat cynical about political
processes and how matters of public policy are best addressed,
and I'm afraid it's largely a matter of exploring extremes until
common sense sets in. Therefore, I have decided to do my part by
representing one extreme of the spectrum.
I am fully aware of the merits and otherwise in the full
disclosure debate, as I am aware of the 1st and 2nd amendments
(both of which I support) so I didn't want to drag the list
into a fruitless discussion. I voiced NFR's corporate dissent
without further explanation or discussion because, in the
words of a friend's 4-year-old, "I've already made up my mind."
We need a couple vocal hard-liners in this industry; the
lunatics have been running the asylum for too long. So here I am.
Marcus J. Ranum
Chief Technology Officer, Network Flight Recorder, Inc.