oliphaunt - Slashdot User

Submission + - FUD alert: Law.com warns on DANGERS!!! of OSS (law.com)

Submitted by

oliphaunt

on Tuesday October 21, 2008 @10:24PM

oliphaunt writes: "In this article from Law.com, William Venema tries to discuss the risk and reward associated with a business decision to adopt open source. And he makes a few fair points. But he shows his true FUD colors in the following paragraph: "The dangers inherent in open-source code are not only legal, however. The technical aspects of such code can also harbor risks for the enterprise. Although many open-source aficionados would disagree, many software experts claim that open-source code ... is more dangerous than proprietary source code ... because hackers can use the source code to find and exploit flaws." This claim is laughable on its face. Which "software experts" make this claim? Really, I'm curious. Is there any credible source still trying to claim that secret code is more secure and less error-prone than OSS?"

Submission + - FOIA: It's not just for the FBI X-Files (thelegality.com)

Submitted by oliphaunt on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @01:24PM

oliphaunt writes: (quoting heavily from TFA:) The John Yoo torture memos would never have been publicly released without the Freedom of Information Act.

FOIA has been used to obtain government information about everything from FBI information on pop culture icons (like Elvis and Frank Sinatra), to notorious criminals (such as Bonnie & Clyde and Al Capone), to famous scientists (like Einstein), and even paranormal activity (UFOs, Roswell, and ESP).

What exactly is this tool and how does it help the public acquire the necessary knowledge to participate effectively in democracy?

Submission + - SeattlePostIntelligencer stands up to FBI (wordpress.com)

Submitted by tekel on Friday August 24, 2007 @07:22PM

tekel writes: This post at RawStory caught my eye:

The alert issued by FBI agents in Seattle on Monday called for the public's help in identifying photographs of two Middle Eastern-looking men who had been reported travelling on ferries exhibiting "unusual behavior."
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer refused to run the photos, explaining:

"We have no confirmation that these men's behavior was anything but innocuous, and to forever taint them by associating them with terrorism under these circumstances is not consistent with our policy," the paper said.
Not consistent with the newspaper's policy, or, you know, the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press from government interference and equal protection under the law for everyone in the United States.

The rest of my amateur legal analysis here.

Slashdot Top Deals