[SCADASEC] Listserver responses

[BlackSwanSecurity]

Time to jump in...

You will see that I have retained my anonymity (on this post at least).
This doesn't mean that I always post anonymously, as I may also be posting
actively to this list using my real name (or at least an email address which
would allow you to work it out).  And before you ask, I do work in this
field.

> Would you give the list an idea of why anonymity would be a good thing?

> Why would a person not want to reveal who they are?

In no particular order...

My opinions may not be the same as my employer (if I have one), so not
knowing who I am also provides some reputation protection to my employer.

I may work for a critical infrastructure operator or vendor, and my comments
on this list could inadvertantly reveal some things about my employer that
they would rather were not in the public domain, so again not knowing who I
am also provides some protection to my employer.

I may be a consultant, and if you knew who I was then everything I say might
be considered as some sort of attempt at promoting my own commercial
services.

I may believe that my comments should be valued based on content, not based
on who I am.

I may just like a quiet life.

> What would we miss by insisting that participants use their real names?

You may miss some comments that people want to make but just cannot make
them using their real name.

 You may miss some interesting posts such as this one!

Is that enough?


On 19/02/2008, Mark Fabro <fabro at loftyperch.com> wrote:
>
>  This is interesting indeed! I am not sure on which side I sit.
>
> Just to play, what about those that have some significant contribution to
> make and need to make it in a timely fashion, but seek no attribution from
> their peers or employers? There are indeed situations where names just
> cannot be attached.
>
> Also, as sad as it may be, there is a history of good postings not given
> credit due to the fact the author was not liked very much and the post was
> dismissed. Maybe I am in an odd position as I know many of the faces behind
> the nyms. We do live in a society where we need handles to get a point
> heard.
>
> Personally, I do not care who is doing the posting as I like to think the
> list is we about ideas. Thankfully, I do not see too much garbage on this
> list posted by anonymous folks. I am hoping that statement does not
> instigate a thread to disprove me :)
>
> Mark
>
> ...no....wait...call me 'scadarrific'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Fabro CISSP, CISM
> President and CEO
> Lofty Perch, Inc.
> fabro at loftyperch.com
> (647)226-4225 direct
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com <
> scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com>
> To: scadasec at news.infracritical.com <scadasec at news.infracritical.com>
> Sent: Tue Feb 19 08:44:46 2008
> Subject: Re: [SCADASEC] Listserver responses
>
> From: Myrcurial <myrcurial at 100percentgeek.net>
>
> > I cannot extend that self-same trust to a public list.
>
> Would you give the list an idea of why anonymity would be a good thing?
>
> Why would a person not want to reveal who they are?
>
> What would we miss by insisting that participants use their real names?
>
> Jake Brodsky
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please visit:
> http://news.infracritical.com/mailman/listinfo/scadasec
>
> To review our privacy statement, please visit:
> http://www.infracritical.com/privacy.html
>
> scadasec at news.infracritical.com
> http://news.infracritical.com/mailman/listinfo/scadasec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please visit:
> http://news.infracritical.com/mailman/listinfo/scadasec
>
> To review our privacy statement, please visit:
> http://www.infracritical.com/privacy.html
>
> scadasec at news.infracritical.com
> http://news.infracritical.com/mailman/listinfo/scadasec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.infracritical.com/pipermail/scadasec/attachments/20080219/74adc71f/attachment.html