🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <comp-privacy2.6.2@pica.army.mil> roy@cybrspc.uucp (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:
>Jarrod Staffen <uswnvg!uswnvg.com!jstaffe@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>
>> BTW, UPS is not ignoring security risks.  They just ignore people
>> who ask about safety risks.  They know what is possible.
>
>Doesn't that strike you as extremely arrogant?

Not necessarily.  It could be a security measure...

>> IMO, though, I think they should do something more to ensure the
>> safety of their electronic data.
>
>And IMO, they should be a little more forthcoming to their customers
>about the precautions they do take (if, in fact, they take any at all...
>I'm still not very convinced).

If they made a habit of disclosing their security measures to
every TD&H who asked, then it would not be secure for very long.
As long as the measures are unknown, the means to defeat them
remain unspecified.  Once you know a security measure, you can
begin working on the means to defeat it.

I have to side w/ UPS policy on disclosure on this one.

After all, they have a right to their privacy, don't they?	<g>

>As a computer professional, I was
>not exactly enthralled to be summarily dismissed by a marketing droid
>who obviously had no grasp of the technical issues I raised.

Don't raise technical issues with marketing droids.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the men who hold high places	|
must be the ones who start		|	-Richard Hartman	
to mold a new reality			|	hartman@uLogic.COM
closer to the heart!			|