Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response)

Tue Dec 24 20:31:55 UTC 2002

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:26:09 EST, Richard Forno said:
> In my last post when I said this:
> > If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the population, then
> > security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable.
> I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience.
> 
> My goof....guess I had too much NOG and not enough NAN at the party last
> night.  :)

A case could be made that you had it right the first time, in that a "large
segment" of the population cares less about security than they do about dancing
hamsters, and that they'd designate the latter as "critical".  Thus the sorry
state of certain end-user software on 90% of the desktops.

Happy Holidays! ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20021224/506c2976/attachment.sig>