Slashdot Mirror
Geer Comments On Firing From @Stake
dwbryson writes "Last week Dan Geer, co-author of the CCIA Microsoft security report, was fired from @stake for expressing 'values and opinions [of the report] not in line with @stake's views.' Now Geer has been talking to eWeek and comments on his dismissal."
We will probably see more cases as this as a higher percentage of scientists are funded directly (in companies) or indirectly (sponsored uni/gov-programs) by businesses.
As if anyone did not know about it; sustained publishing of controversial research funded by corporations is almost impossible.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
What kind of wooly crap is this? I mean, if I criticise my biggest customer, or my company's profit base, I think I can expect my manager to have 'words' with me at least. This is just another MS-is-bad-and-I-don't-care-if-that's-true-or-not story.
If you claim to be security consultants who know security, rather than PR consultants who use words like "security" to help advertising, then you do very poorly for yourself by so obviously and publicaly squelching any appearance of having said something potentially negative about the security of one of your largest customers.
The point is that Microsoft's huge power in the industry appears to be making it impossible for real security firms to exist. As such, we should all be leary of any such's claims, and wonder if in fact they are really PR firms who use words like "security".
-Rob
His job is to spot the trends coming in the future - And his employer gags him for doing his job - I stand by my remarks in the previous thread on this topic - @Stake will have a very hard time attracting a decent replacement candidate, and their research will now always be suspect...
But should corporations have constitutional rights? Like individuals?
Considering that the avowed objective of any corporation is to make money, and no other purpose, they are by definition non-ethical. The individuals that comprise them may well be ethical, but the resulting "virtual entity" isn't. A human being has a conscience, may care about the consequences of his actions; moral, ethical, religious, or justicial. A corporation has no conscience, no morals, and should not be considered equal or superior to a human being, and be given equal rights.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
@stake used to be "l0pht heavy industries", a nifty little group of hackers toying around. (www.l0pht.com) Now they're all business. Lame. "What happened l0pht? You used to be cool."
I am surprised that Dan has decided to publicly say anything. This would seem to indicate his relutcance to pursue the matter in court. Or maybe he just hasn't spoken to a lawyer yet. Or is this opening slavo?
Before the obvious referances are made let me just say (again) that what @stake has become is in no way related to what L0pht was. I think there is only one of us left (Weld), everyone else has seen the writing on the wall and moved on. I just hope Dan is able to put this behind him soon and move on as well.
- SRspacerog AT spacerogue DOT net
As an example of the kind of behind-the-scenes influence that large vendors have, Geer cited his efforts to find an academic security expert or two to sign on to the paper on software diversity. After contacting nine people and striking out each time, he gave up.
"All of them said it was too hot for their position," Geer said. "They enjoy the free speech benefits of tenure but not necessarily those of funding."
His experience is interesting; it shows just how there are limits, even in academia, to how far people are willing to go in their pursuit of the truth.
Microsoft might not have an irresponsible security record due to business practices, but the hypothesis put forward by Geer and the others should be examined carefully and openly both for where it might errors, and where their hypothesis fits the facts. That's the way all scientific progress is made.
And he's right, too, about a phone call not being necessary. Conditioning, and seeing what happens to people that take a stand in opposition to some powerful force, is enough to convince most people that self-censorship, if not the better part of valor, is certainly the better expedient for maintaining your comfort.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Maybe for you. Actually, I am quite nauseated by the sheer number of people who think this way and accept (and by omission, condone) the unethical behavior of their employers. What's interesting is that these are frequently the same people who frequently complain that corporations are "evil."
While I acknowledge that I've made my share of mistakes in previous jobs, my individuality and sense of free will (hallucinatory or otherwise) have enabled me to make conscious decisions about my choice of employer. For me, ethics has been a very important part of those decisions.
In fact, I was asked during an interview with a manager what was important to me in choosing a job: I told the interviewer flat-out that the most important thing was ethics. Well, when I had a follow-up with my recruiter, it turns out that the interviewer had been flabbergasted by that response. Nobody had ever given him such an answer before. And, as it turns out, not only did it make an impression, it also landed me the job.
Being ethical first does pay, contrary to the popular belief that money and ethics are mutually exclusive. Ask yourself this: would you be willing to accept a 5% pay cut if you knew that you could trust your employer? Hell, Microsoft, Enron, the Bush Administration, or the RIAA could offer me a job tomorrow promising to double my salary, and I would turn it down flat.
But then again, maybe most people are just too complacent to think a bit outside the box and realize that more conscionable options actually do exist.