Michael Farnum
34p41 comments posted · 2 followers · following 1
14 years ago @ An Information Securit... - An Information Securit... · 0 replies · +1 points
Glad you found the feed. Thanks for listening!
14 years ago @ An Information Securit... - An Information Securit... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ An Information Securit... - An Information Securit... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ An Information Securit... - An Information Securit... · 0 replies · +1 points
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - Can IT Vendors be Obje... · 1 reply · +2 points
On point two, you missed my point (which in fairness I made not have made clear). You were passed over on a hard and fast rule. You were NEVER considered because of that rule. So there was NO POINT in her looking at your stuff. That is called "weeding out". I did that a million times as a manager when looking at resumes. You have to have that rule set, or you waste a lot of time. in this case, the publication has determined a rule set to do that initial weeding out. Whether it is fair or not is not my point. It is what it is because they have made that determination. You may not like it, but you don't have to.
Now if they don't weed you out, then hell yes they should do due diligence.
Now, as to whether or not I agree, NO, I DO NOT AGREE. Happy? :)
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - Can IT Vendors be Obje... · 3 replies · +2 points
1. I think vendors can be objective to a point
2. I don't think people have time to consider an entire (or even a large partial sample) to determine objectivity. They have to make a rule and stick with it, or they get bogged down in the minutia. Is the rule fair? Probably not.
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - The scourge of default... · 0 replies · +1 points
And if the vendor does not include a default password, then we can argue about how the user should include a strong password. And so on... :)
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - Another Apple Software... · 0 replies · +1 points
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - I have an "opinio... · 0 replies · +1 points
2. If they want him to write a column on the benefits of encryption somewhere in the mag, then great. We can read it and know he is biased, but he is giving expert advice, and I would appreciate that. But to put someone in the opinion section as to whether or not companies should implement a technology that you sell is ludicrous. It offers no value. I can't discuss products in my CW blog because I sell so many of them, and it might show bias. No one could take my recommendation seriously because I would probably be trying to swing the purchasing decision one way or the other.
15 years ago @ An Information Securit... - Palin effigy not a &qu... · 0 replies · +1 points
I sympathize with your position Alan because you have been a victim of hate because of your heritage. You know that I expressed in no uncertain terms my hatred for the actions of those dirt bags that jacked with a friend of mine.
The skinheads that were arrested did commit a crime. They did plan on killing a lot of people (including a presidential candidate), and they were racially motivated. Totally see the difference. But the crimes they arrested on were already crimes. Why does the label of "hate crime" have to be added because it was racially motivated (BTW, to my knowledge there are not any hate crimes being added to their rap sheet)? What does that achieve? Focus on race? If so, then how will your kids ever achieve color blindness when it is spread all across every newspaper every time someone does something bad that might be racially motivated? I don't see how you can say that you want people to be colorblind but then support legislation that makes that almost impossible to achieve. I don't have to walk in anyone's shoes to know that "hate crime" legislation does nothing but keep our country from moving forward and getting this race monkey off our backs.