Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
From: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Malicious posting worries (was re: A counter-example...)
Summary: Persuasion != coercion.
Message-ID: <3333@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 88 22:32:06 GMT
References: <266@octopus.UUCP> <3331@s.cc.purdue.edu> <272@octopus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Unix Systems Staff
Lines: 24
Keywords:

In article <272@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
>Ahh, now you understand. There is always a functionality/risk tradeoff.

Actually, I have understood this all along, since the days when I first
started using Usenet in 1980.

>Functionality/risk tradeoffs are in the eyes of the beholder. Please put
>yourself in the other guy's sandals before assuming that the functionality/
>risk tradeoffs he lives with are intolerable.

What possible reason could you have for assuming that I would not do so?
I think a fair reading of my comments would indicate that I have carefully
considered the issues from several viewpionts...further, my statements 
clearly represent my opinion, and are labelled as such; no attempt is made
to apply them to other people, or to coerce others into agreeing with them.

I suggest, incidentally, that many of those using the program resources
of the network, *especially* those using binary programs, are not in a
position to know whether the risk tradeoffs are intolerable for themselves
or not, simply because they are not aware of them.  Further, in my most
recent article, I spoke primarily of the risk to institutions and system
administrators; this issue has not been addressed in your response.

rsk