[124004] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NSP-SEC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Fri Mar 19 11:36:49 2010
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: nenolod@systeminplace.net, jtk@cymru.com,
Adam Stasiniewicz <adam@adamstas.com>
In-Reply-To: <f38baa0e211cd438637999417b1ae7c6@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Adam Stasiniewicz <adam@adamstas.com> wrote:
> IMHO, I think you have it
> backwards.=A0 I see strategic discussions (like
> new crypto algorithms, technologies, initiatives, etc)
> should be open to
> public debate, review, and scrutiny.=A0 But
> operational/tactical discussions
> (like new malware, software exploits, virus infected hosts,
> botnets, etc)
> don't need public review.=A0 Rather, those types of
> communications should be
> streamlined that would allow for quick resolution.
>=20
Fair point - I was using "strategic" in the law enforcement with things lik=
e "long-term undercover investigation" in mind, but your point is well take=
n. I think we agree that some things benefit from increased transparency a=
nd other things don't.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:=20
http://www.listentothefranchise.com=0A=0A=0A
