再保险:网络犯罪公约

> - - - - - - - - - - - >从原始信息:亚当Shostack [mailto: adam@HOMEPORT.ORG]>在星期一,2000年5月,在-0400年01:24:04PM, Steven m . Christey写道:> |一个董事会成员已经给我发了一封电子邮件说他们> |关心整个编辑部声明,> |虽然他们本人同意。> > |的成员关心的似乎是相关的事实,如果“>板”> |声明,那么成员的组织可能被视为同意> |协会的声明。> | > |不同成员发给我一封电子邮件说,虽然成员> |同意的问题,他们不能公开发表评论,> |尤其是虽然自己的组织可能追求独立这个问题> |。但这成员似乎没有>关心> |董事会声明会反思自己的组织。> | > |所以在我看来,它可能不合适声明> |从董事会作为一个整体。我认为这部分是由于> |我们不要形式化董事会成员是否代表> |自己或为他们的组织。> | > |我想我们可以使用介绍性文本斯图尔特>,> |,说编辑委员会的声明是一个结果>讨论,> |,倡导通过各种董事会成员,但它不是一个声明> |全板本身。人不舒服> |代表他们的组织可以提供反馈> |幕后,或者被列在声明中没有他们组织> |联系。> >和我游说的人,他们说>声明由董事会是一个更为强大的工具提供COE, >这一份声明标题,董事会不同意>的影响不大。我同意这一点,我有一个初步的讨论了霍华德•施密特。 As soon as we can get something nailed down (and Stuart's post looks like a great start), I am going to try and push so that this isn't just IMHO, but also something that Microsoft Information Security will stand behind as well. > Steve, could you ask those who question a board statement if they'd be > more willing to accept a disclaimer within the text, such as: > > "In our capacity as security experts,  has recently > come to our > attention, and we have some concerns about it, specifically Article > 6." > > Or at the bottom: "Affiliations are listed here for identification > purposes only." > > This allows a board statement to be made without drawing in all of the > organizations which we may or may not represent. We really need to sort this out. We have a real need as a group to deal with this issue in a positive, pro-active manner. If certain members have a need to drop out of this for their own reasons, then I want to come up with some way to speak as a group without diluting the message. It may just be a matter of spinning it properly. If we demand 100% consensus to ever speak as a group, we'll never say anything. I do very well understand the perils of speaking for your company without proper authorization, but I know that we need to speak out on this. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin