News
Blue Hats vs. Red Mond
The now annual BlueHat Security Briefings, where Microsoft invites top security
gurus to test Redmond's wares and learn how to secure, just ended, and I'm dang
sorry I missed it (of course, being severely security challenged, I didn't rate
an invite).
Sessions ranged from exploiting the Web and securing ASP to making apps that
run on Windows core technologies safer. One of the more exciting speakers was
Johnny "I hack stuff" Long, an expert on using Google for exploits.
Here's
what you missed.
And here's what Redmond
folks have to say.
'People-Ready': Thank You Captain Obvious!
"Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer today outlined the company's vision
for how people, armed with the right software, are the key to driving business
success."
Thus began a press
release posted late last week on Microsoft.com. Think about that for a second.
Does that have any meaning whatsoever? Did Microsoft do a survey and discover
that businesses are run by robots, computers and house plants? It's almost
as if they called a press conference before they had any idea what they were
going to announce, and some marketing flunky looked at all the humans in the
room and tossed out the 'people' idea.
Microsoft is so in love with this nonsense that it is spending
half a billion dollars on an ad campaign. Does 'people-ready' mean anything
to you, or is it pure unadulterated drivel? Let me know at [email protected].
IT Jobs: Hirings Finally Outnumber Firings
The IT job market is almost as flat as a run-over Texas armadillo, according
to Robert
Half Technology. Eighty-four percent of CIOs surveyed plan no change, while
4 percent plan to slash, burn or otherwise boot IT workers out the door. There
is a sliver of good news: Twelve percent of CIOs hope to actually hire more
people this year. Also good news for many of you, the No. 1 skill in demand
is Windows administration.
| Subscribe
to Redmond Report |
This column
was originally published in our weekly Redmond Report newsletter.
To subscribe, click here. |
|
|
Hiding Behind Anonymity: Cowardice or Free Speech?
There's a bill
in New Jersey you may have heard about where anonymous forum posts would be
outlawed, or at least ISPs would be held liable for any harm these posts may
cause.
Free speech types jumped all over this, simplistically arguing that we should
all be free to say whatever we want, without having to own up to it. The bill
is a blunt and perhaps wacky sword, but isn't there just a shred of logic
here? We have slander and libel laws that make it illegal to lie about someone
and cause them harm. Of course, these laws assume that the libeler/slanderer
can be identified. With anonymity one can libel and slander till the cows come
home (tax-evading, gluttonous, foul-smelling cows -- I can say this because
cows can't sue…I hope).
Is it fair to let anonymous posters say whatever they want -- with no legal
recourse? You tell me at [email protected].
About the Author
Doug Barney is editor in chief of Redmond magazine and the VP, editorial director of Redmond Media Group.