Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog...
From: Donald Tees (Donald_Tees_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 10/08/03
- Next message: Chris Wood: "Re: As I read the announcement ..."
- Previous message: We need more power captain: "Redundant code sections."
- In reply to: RKRayhawk: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Next in thread: jce: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:31:36 -0400
Amen.
Donald
"RKRayhawk" <rkrayhawk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031007234724.15771.00000341@mb-m13.aol.com...
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" dashwood@enternet.co.nz
> Date: 10/7/03 7:27 PM EST
> Message-id: <3f835b32$1_7@news.athenanews.com>
>
> Made valued comments, concluding with ...
>
> <<
>
> It would be foolish to abandon the network because it is perceived to be
> "insecure". The fact is, it can be as secure as you are prepared to make
it.
>
> >>
>
> You are right.
>
> The problem is the generalization of these impressive system features.
When we
> turn on the capability for the good guys we turn it on for the bad guys.
>
> In a small way you are dancing very near the area that I call arrogant.
Kind of
> a dangerous word to use, I know, especially when there are such generous
> contributors such as your self that might sense that expression wrong.
>
> I am calling to task everyone who is anyone technically. It really is not
> personal.
>
> The idea that the fix for people who have had damage to their system is to
let
> them have a system administrator, is exactly analogous to let them have
cake.
> We need to wake up.
>
> I have interacted as a consultant, looking for an opportunity in Atlanta,
with
> a non-white placement firm. They were not able to retrieve my resume on
the day
> of the call back because there system was down. A virus was making it
crash as
> soon as it booted. Those fighting their way into the economy from the
least
> advantaged position are the ones least able to combat the incompetence of
> remote control system destruction. They are the least able to afford
another
> expensive employee, the system administrator. And it is harsh to describe
them
> as unprepared, they are doing everything they can to be prepared. Such
groups
> are the ones who would benefit most from computer technology, the
efficiencies
> give them a fighting chance.
>
> I have interacted with female self employed placement professionals from
> Columbia, South Carolina to Los Angeles, California, who have spent
useless
> time trying to reinstall productivity suites and operating systems. Folks
in
> this category are generally less financed by banks, less favored by
consumers
> of the placement services, and in fact disadvataged because they are not
> associated with a large establishment that can afford to pay someone to
set
> permissions, review CERT warnings and to apply patches. The exact people
that
> information technology should help the most as a playing field leveler are
the
> most harmed by the data processing industry's refusal to achnowledge a
serious
> problem. These people do no agree to relinquish control of their assets
when
> they buy computers or software or ISP sevices. They have not agreed to
lose
> control.
>
> I am interested in continuing my education at Berkeley by taking a Java
course
> online. I noticed that a day or two into the semester, all Berkeley.edu
sites I
> needed were not up. There were reports that day that major university were
> finding a sudden surge of viruses as students returned to school and
commenced
> using campus systems for email (I am not clear on how extensive or how
long the
> shut down lasted). This is a big problem. It is a real problem. And it is
> fundamental.
>
> The handing of a reference to an internal executable capability to an
active
> mechanism that came from outside of the business computer is not wise.
>
> The arrogance is not coming from excellent technicians such as yourself
who
> would use these capabilities. The arrogance comes from a number of people
in
> much more important positions. The designer of the foundation software
that
> installs with active capabilities by default is responsible. The purveyor
of
> OSes and productivity suites that by default allow the external control.
>
> I do not think that we should abandon the network. However, I will stick
with
> my basic view,
> which is we have not thought through the idea of
> remotely activated controls. The entire first generation must be
considered a
> failure. It is causing palpable damage, and eroding confidence in the
> technology and the people who deliver it.
>
> I believe that OSes, productivity suites, _and_ the hardware that
delivered
> them, should be subject to recall if they are bring forth loss of control
of
> the business's assets. No one is agreeing to the loss of control. There is
a
> fundamental problem here.
>
> It is exactly here, where the fun technology moves away from the toasters
and
> in the direction of the serious corporate assets that the tripwire must
spark.
>
> We have a need for technicians that better understand references, and a
need
> for professionals that understand peoples lives
> are impacted when the net delivers active damage. Those people count and
they
> do not
> want cake. They want reliable system that they
> can trust.
>
> We have all been arrogant, and there is clear evidence that the time for
change
> has arrived.
> We need to bring this back home and rethink it.
>
>
>
> Best Wishes
> Bob Rayhawk
> RKRayhawk@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Chris Wood: "Re: As I read the announcement ..."
- Previous message: We need more power captain: "Redundant code sections."
- In reply to: RKRayhawk: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Next in thread: jce: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
