That’s not what “bully pulpit” means. Check it out – interesting stuff from our past.
i wonder if this is in any way related to mcafee being in bed with governmental malware writers (hbgary, exposed by lulzsec in 2011).
they’re certainly not neutral in this subject.
2 Likes
McAfee said [it] would not be able to reference Snowden in any activity,
Sounds pretty bad.
Let’s just say, if you are interested in cybersecurity professionally or personally, you have not been ignoring the Snowden leaks. You can’t present a thoroughgoing picture of cybersecurity without mentioning this stuff.
What I don’t really understand is why McAfee cares. Conservatives might get annoyed?
2 Likes
Snowden should be mentioned in a timeline of important security events, but if the exhibit has to do with people actually working in the field, then clearly Snowden shouldn’t be listed, since he was a sysadmin and not a security expert, cryptographer, or a hacker of any kind.
1 Like
umm what? don’t confuse his organizational role with what he did within the organization. he was brought in as a security expert, he frequently reported security vulnerabilities in NSA software, and he turned down a position in tailored access operations (the group that actually performs attacks and compromises systems).
source:
2 Likes
The exhibit is primarily about the activity, not the names. Unless you can cite something that he DID which is relevant to cybersecurity, then for the purposes of this presentation he’s one more obscure name among many obscure names.
If the exhibit was about the history of public interaction with cybersecurity he might merit mention.
If the exhibit was about the history of organizational feuds, or manpower management, he might merit mention.
As it is, I really can’t disagree with them.
i’m pretty sure pulling off the most famous and damaging insider attack in US history, against a government organization that eats, sleeps, and breathes cybersecurity, is relevant to cybersecurity for exactly the same reasons that other, more banal insider threats are relevant to cybersecurity.
4 Likes
We agree we disagree about whether the focus should be on the event or the individual. I’ll shaddup now.
1 Like
well, regardless of the decision that gets made, i’m much more interested in what mcafee - no, check that, what intel (mcafee is a wholly owned subsidiary of intel now) has to do with the decision making process. that’s fishy in it’s own right.
it used to be that history was written by the victors. is history now written by the corporate sponsors?
1 Like
If the claim is confimed – and if McAfee wasn’t already involved in curating the exhibit, in which case they were already involved and this is just another decision among many, which would answer your question – I agree.
‘History is written by the corporate sponsors.’
Nailed it. Mind if I borrow that?
1 Like
Depends on your definition of “damage”. A lot of people consider making public massive illegal activity on the part of government agencies to qualify as at least the first stage in “repairing”.
2 Likes
Surely, as a museum, they shouldn’t be featuring Snowdon in an exhibition, because he’s not part of history yet? He only started leaking things six months ago, how is that something that should be in a museum now?
Give it five years when we have some idea of the cultural impact and then decide who is representative enough to go in an exhibition. For what it’s worth I think Snowdon will be featured.
2 Likes
So, did you send the Friends of Bletchley Park a nice, Canadian-politely-worded letter outlining why you’re going to apply the same kind of pressure that McAfee is applying, by withholding your funds until they reverse their decision.
Of course, you’d have to mention that you’re letting everyone on boingboing know, eh.
1 Like
British civil servants: Wouldn’t know a spine if you whipped them with it.
Some mitigating factors to consider:
-
A few years ago, The Friends of Bletchley Park almost went under for lack of sponsorship. They were probably so desperate they didn’t read the fine print on McAfee’s contract.
-
As others have mentioned, while Snowden definitely has a place in cybersecurity and geopolitical history, it’s still a subject of debate as to what that place will be and what (if any) reforms to intelligence gathering will occur as a result. I’m not saying hold off until he dies or anything like that. But it’s been less than a year now, which isn’t really enough time to understand the impact of Snowden’s revelations in a way that can be presented in an exhibit.
1 Like
One more thing to add to the list of reasons I give people for never installing a McAfee product.
if you need anymore reasons for avoiding mcafee to add to that list, the fact that they’re in bed with government malware writers is a really good one.
1 Like
My friends and I used to go into art museums with trench coats loaded up with mini paintings on the inside. We would then walk around showing our original artwork like we were selling fake rolex on the street. It seems like there is a similar opportunity here. Let’s organize visitors to the museum who can walk in with easily unfoldable sandwich-board type displays with the NSA leaks on one side to complement and fill in the gap in the exhibition, and info about McAfee’s sponsorship/censorship on the other.
Hello,
Mr. McAfee’s behavior while at work was fairly mundane. Please do not confuse what is reported in the media as being representative of real life activities.
Also, John McAfee is publicly on record on saying he is behind Edward Snowden, describing him as a hero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQ-AfRNG18
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
2 Likes
