Talk:Worst cases: Difference between revisions

    From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    (enemy group)
    (rather then writing here, please send me your worst case ideas)
    Line 4: Line 4:


    :[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom Center for Consumer Freedom] is the kind of people we are up against.  They are smart, and well-funded, and you better believe they do this kind of analysis.
    :[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom Center for Consumer Freedom] is the kind of people we are up against.  They are smart, and well-funded, and you better believe they do this kind of analysis.
    ::Maybe, but we shouldn't be doing the work for them or whatever party is interested in blocking [[Delivery]] of [[Consumerium]] [[Features|services]]. Rather if someone has thought of a [[worst cases]] scenario, [http://www.consumerium.org/Juxo.gpgkey encrypt] it and mail it to me. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 16:27 Jun 23, 2003 (EEST)

    Revision as of 16:27, 23 June 2003

    I'm not sure at all if it's wise to publicly list the sensitive points which can be used to haul consumerium out of the way for a more productionism orientated system with similar features, but lacking the observance of corporate social responsibility issues.Juxo 17:25 Jun 22, 2003 (EEST)

    Well, there are two attitudes 1. assume that you are a genius who can figure out all this in advance without ever writing it down or working out weak points "security by obscurity" 2. assume that you need to brainstorm about the problems that can be visited on you in a competitive world, by those who seek to subvert, and, that you can best discourage them by working out a robust solution, wit good answers to all the threats and worst cases You have no non-public way to do this, and surely you would rather be notified of potential attacks or competitors this way than by having them suddenly appear, exploiting flaws in the licenses and audit process that you never thought of, or discussed? Same issue as computer security - you can be transparent or try to hide flaws in the hope that this hiding will make you obscure. But if it does, you aren't having any influence. So the winning strategy is probably the more open one.
    Center for Consumer Freedom is the kind of people we are up against. They are smart, and well-funded, and you better believe they do this kind of analysis.
    Maybe, but we shouldn't be doing the work for them or whatever party is interested in blocking Delivery of Consumerium services. Rather if someone has thought of a worst cases scenario, encrypt it and mail it to me. --Juxo 16:27 Jun 23, 2003 (EEST)