Forwarded from: Brooks J Isoldi <firstname.lastname@example.org> It just seems a bit odd how it is NOT acceptable to the source of Mr Greenes information to publish the actual information (nor the sources and methods, which is not unusual), but it IS acceptable for Greene to publish a detailed summary of the information. The logic is incredibly flawed here because Greene welcomes a lawsuit by @Stake, whereby if Greene refuses to share the information with a court of law, then he accepts defeat in the lawsuit, and if he does share the information then he compromises his asset. The Register is a UK company, @Stake is a US company, and I don't know the laws of Int'l business but it would seem to me that this would be how it would break down, no? Brooks Isoldi The Intelligence Network http://www.intellnet.org 877-581-3724 [Voicemail/Fax] "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another..." -Declaration of Independence (1776) On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, InfoSec News wrote: > Forwarded from: Thomas C. Greene <email@example.com> > > [Edited only enough to get past everyone's filters... - WK] > > i know it's hard to accept that people whose carefully-contrived > anti-establishment media image we've all admired (and envied) can be such > sh*ts, but there it is. you're in denial, bud. > > the proof exists. i can't publish it for two reasons: 1) the source has > requested anonymity; and 2) the L0pht cheese-eater involved would be subject > to retaliation. > > if my proof is cr*p, then @Stake will sue The Register and win their > case in court. but don't hold your breath, lol. > > --tcg - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email firstname.lastname@example.org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 02:39:50 PDT