Unfortunately, one of the things that seems to have been overlooked in this political discussion, which I believe does not have a place in this technical forum, is that a great and sorely needed project is in jeopardy. OpenBSD is generally considered one of the most secure network operating systems available today, and that is even before the recent announcement of the new resistance, if not vulnerability to buffer overflows which can be considered the holy grail of programming. Whether you feel da Raadt was wrong for expressing his views on peace, or that DARPA was wrong for politicizing a technical project, the point here should be that the entire technical world is the loser... Curt Purdy CISSP, MCSE+I, CNE, CCDA Senior Systems Engineer Information Security Engineer DP Solutions ---------------------------------------- If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What's more, you deserve to be hacked. -- White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-adminat_private [mailto:full-disclosure-adminat_private]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:21 PM To: jasoncat_private; InfoSec News; isnat_private Cc: wkat_private; full-disclosureat_private Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding Thank you. I'm so sick and tired of hearing the cry of "McCarthyism" from celebrities who have spoken out against the war and are now suffering from boycotts of their products. Get over it. You had the right to say what you want. And we have the right to not buy your stupid records, movies, whatever. It's *free* speech, *not* speech without consequences. Ask Senator Trent Lott if there is a price for speech. I didn't hear any of the anti-war celebrities complain about that. --On Friday, April 18, 2003 10:09:45 AM -1000 Jason Coombs <jasoncat_private> wrote: >> "In the U.S., today, free speech is just a myth," de Raadt said. > > This is an important issue because so many people get it completely > wrong, de Raadt included. > > Free speech means the government cannot put you in jail for the things > you say or believe. > > It does not mean the government is required to continue to pay you to do > work or fund your projects regardless of the things that you say or > believe. > > It does not mean the government cannot create hardship for you, or that it > must protect you from hardship imposed on you by others. > > Further, the U.S. constitution does not apply to foreign nationals and it > has no direct impact on business dealings except indirectly as it relates > to the legislative process whereby State and Federal laws are enacted and > enforced that seek to regulate business dealings consistent with > constitutional law. > > We must bear in mind that free speech exists within a context of freedom; > we cannot impose behavioral restrictions or affirmative obligations on > government agencies or private parties that remove the freedom of those > parties to exercise sound subjective judgment. The day that we impose > government controls for allowable consequences against you for your > choice to exercise your freedom of speech is the day we kill freedom in > our effort to protect speech. Paul Schmehl (paulsat_private) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 09:27:50 PDT