Re: [Full-disclosure] Blair is more important than network security?

[Pete Barnwell <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 11:28, Jan Meijer wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, n3td3v wrote:
> 
> > This is a good thread. On the ITSafe website (a new security advisory
> > site setup by uk.gov) it says the following...
> >
> >
> > "
> > ITsafe News Issue 2005/02
> >
> > The normal plan is for ITsafe News to be published on a monthly basis.
> >
> > The April 2005 Issue has been withheld due to restrictions on
> > publication of new material by Government Departments during the
> > General Election, as detailed in the Cabinet Office guidance document.
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> > Great stuff isn't it? This kinda goes to show UK gov is setup wrong
> > with regards to internet security...
> > Another reason *not* to vote for Blair?
> 
> Elections are a sensitive period in a democracy.  If you want to know what 
> can happen if that period is not treated as such, have a look at what 
> happens in lots of African countries.  And mind you, elections that go 
> wrong can result in bodyparts flying around after which the state of the 
> Internet rapidly becomes less important.
> 
> It would seem like someone has decided that the balance between the 
> benefit the ITSafe publication and the possibly disturbing efect it might 
> have on the election (might have something to do with the thing going live 
> in Feb 2005?  Maybe it is therefor classified as 'new program'?) weight 
> heavier towards the election process.
> 
> Then again, it might be part of an overall plot by Mr. Blair's 
> spindoctors to curtail publications as much as possible.
> 
> One never knows.  Glad I don't have to vote in .uk.

You don't have to - chances are somebody else has already applied for a
postal vote in your name...

Pete

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/