FW: FW: [LINK] Open source just as insecure as Windows

[Dearne, Karen]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dearne, Karen 
Sent: Thursday, 14 November 2002 6:25
To: 'Ralph Seberry'
Subject: RE: FW: [LINK] Open source just as insecure as Windows


Sorry, the types of comments made would be defamatory if published in a
paper or radio etc. I would sue and ensure a handy retirement fund. Consider
:

If you all meet in a pub and say KD writes a load garabage, that's fine, I
dont care, very little damage is done. If you post to a mailing list and say
look you've made an error, i've got a different opinion, whatever, that's
fine. I'm quite happy about that and happy to join the discussion (altho it
has taken me over 24 hours to get my response accepted, and then only after
Irene also filed it).

But its a different matter when all kinds of people who do not know me or my
work and for ill-conceived or malicious reasons then start posting -
repeating - defamatory remarks about my professional expertise to countless
websites where I cannot rebut or refute the remarks. 

Now, I am a writer, well regarded by many, actually, and my work is
published on a large number of privacy, anti-censorship, and civil liberty
websites globally. It is also increasingly referenced in academic works and
even texts, and in other forms. So, on the internet, I have a global
reputation -- as does everybody -- and I dont see why it should be trashed
simply becos someone disagrees with something someone else - not me - says. 

I believe that Chris Klaus is perfectly entitled to express his point of
you, he is a security expert not a Linux expert, he never claimed to be. In
fact he said was "agnostic", an os is an os to him. But he says that he is
seeing a lot more problems with Linux as it becomes more widely deployed.
This has been said by many people and it is a perfectly reasonable comment.
So was the commentary by a lawyer last week that there may be legal problems
in implementing Linux in enterprises. Well, there are. They will have to be
addressed -- would you rather not know, bury your heads in the sand? Will
all the nasty stuff go away if we don't talk about it?

I am however highly disconcerted that the tone of the linux ranters is that
no one should be permitted to say anything "bad" about Linux. The message
I'm getting is: don't publish anything we dont like or we'll hammer you; if
u do publish something, make sure you dump a bucket on the bastard at the
same time.

Is this the great free speech of the internet? 

Well, it's interesting. Lawyers keep telling me that the laws of the real
world apply to the online world too, and if they dont they'll jolly soon fix
that! Now defamation is fairly specific, but I could wait and see how the
Gutnick case goes. I'm actually inclined to think there may be something I
could use under the NSW Computer Crimes Act, that prohibits just about
everything. Or I could make a complaint to the ANU, or to the ABA (that
would give them something useful to do). Or of course I could take my own
direct action online.

Now bearing in mind that the List is publicly and permanently archived, I
think the ANU, the ABA and others would be obliged to act upon complaints.
If not, I could bring it up with the attorney-general when next I speak to
him.

My point is that if List members cannot behave with some responsibility and
consideration in their postings then there will be yet more pushes for
prohibition, for shutdowns. Bit ironic, really, when you're trying to censor
me and the people I speak to. Perhaps List members should give the matter
some thought.

Regards

PS My employer owns all digital rights to my work, not me. And I don't think
that some of the remarks could ever be interpreted as fair and reasonable
comment under the Copyright Act.


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Seberry [mailto:mischief@optushome.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 14 November 2002 5:46
To: Dearne, Karen
Cc: 'Link@anu.edu.au'
Subject: Re: FW: [LINK] Open source just as insecure as Windows


On Thursday, 14 Nov 2002 at 16:04, Dearne, Karen
<dearnek@theaustralian.com.au> wrote:
> And I got the ASIO story from actually reading the report
> that was tabled in parliament. And yes, I happen to know that the gumnint
> reads what I write -- they pay me a lump sum every now and then for
> photocopying my stories. Unlike u guys, who trash my name and IP in the
name
> of free speech. 

Government use is governed by s48a of the copyright act 1968, whereby
the parliamentary library can make copies, but copies kept by members
of parliament would attract royalties.

Members of this list can use your material by avoiding using a "substantial
amount" under s40(2) (whatever that might be) or by the more certain path
of producing it for "criticism or review" under s41.

So the "trashing of your name" is not in pursuit of anarchic free speech,
but in the traditions laid out by the copyright act.

You might like to note that you can publish newsworthy comments on this
list under s42. Again, attribution would not be malicious, but required
by that section.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s40.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s41.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s42.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s48a.html


This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this
message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete
this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply
e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not
relate to the official business of News Limited or its subsidiaries must be
taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No warranty is made
that the e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other
defect.