Sickening shilling for MS by Ontario privacy commissioner

[Andrew Chung]

"Have you finished beating up that straw man that you've so artfully
constructed? Do you have specific proof that Microsoft is engaging in
"back room deals" and presumably buying our Privacy Commissioner or are
you just engaging in hyperbole?" 

"Back room deals".... would signing a 5 year contract with Microsoft
without going to tender and eliminating all other encumbent vendors
count as "back room"? Quite honestly, I don't really care that they did
based on where I work, but I do care that my tax dollars are being spent
making such decisions without following the procedure that they mandate.


I definitely agree with the privacy commissioner in that such a system
needs to be in place, however, I'm a little concerned that all the
examples given in the paper pertained to Microsoft. Microsoft makes (or
buys then enhances) some really great technologies without a doubt. I
guess the thing that really burns me is that individuals who read it,
won't necessarily read "yes we need a system like this and I'll go out
and use anything to do it", they will read "yes we need a system, and we
need Microsoft" and not think about what else is out there. MS is a
marketing machine and this is another example of that. If you think
people will think about Identity and federation without thinking about
Microsoft after reading this paper, then I'm obviously not reading the
same paper you are. I don't know, maybe there is some value to writing a
paper that mentions a single vendor like Microsoft (I don't know what
that is but I'm open to hearing those value statements), and if their
is, is it more valuable than writing a paper that mentions multiple
vendors? 

Governments "should" present unbiased information to its public as a
public service and in this case, it's not unbiased. For individuals
working in the industry, yes, I can see how one may just read the MS
"examples" as examples, but for the general public, ones not in the
industry, they won't read them just as examples. It's marketing hidden
in a public message for crying out loud. 

To Ann's credit though, she does put in small print at the very end of
the paper, some links to some other cool identity projects. Why she
didn't talk about them in the paper is beyond me and probably relates
back to my question about value above. Personally I think that if she
did, the paper would have been much more effective. Interestingly
enough, she goes back in her interview to say 

"The opportunity is with all players in the identity metasystem working
within a common framework that will provide the user with the benefits
of being able to have a secure and private way of establishing and
maintaining relationships on-line. The good news is that many in the
tech industry, including IBM, Sun, Red Hat, Novell and many telcos have
already aligned around this framework. My job is to get the word out as
broadly as possible that the only way to protect privacy in the future
is to ensure that whatever identity systems are deployed are privacy
protective. Right now, that's simply not the case. In fact, the exact
opposite exists in the current structure of multiple and ineffective
identity systems." 

>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at  5:59 PM, in message
<200610201759.14440.clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>, CLIFFORD ILKAY
<clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:

On Friday 20 October 2006 16:47, David J Patrick wrote:
> On 20/10/06, CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I agree. Even if this was a Microsoft specific technology, which
> > it isn't, Microsoft employs some of the most notable computer
> > scientists on the planet so they are bound to have a few good
> > ideas now and then.
>
> So let me see if I got this right;
> If the Ontario's privacy commissioner manages to have us all adopt
> privacy and security measures based on Windows Vista unproven
> technologies, while allowing the Redmond team to inject proprietary
> versions of existing security methods, that will only run on Vista
> (and the very new hardware it requires) and passing the brunt of
> the provinces secure authentication transactions to a private
> company across the border.. you're OK with that ?

I'm waiting for you to ask me if I beat my wife often.

Ontario's Privacy Commissioner isn't advocating we adopt a particular
implementation of this technology. She is advocating the general
concept. I doubt you have read what this identify meta system is all
about because if you had, you would know that you don't have to run
Windows Vista to use it. You're jumping to the conclusion that just
because the word "Microsoft" was mentioned, that this is a Microsoft
specific technology. Moreover, just because something is supported or
promoted by Microsoft doesn't automatically make it bad.

>  If Microsoft does something right, the Linux fan boys still
>
> > attack Microsoft because in their minds, Microsoft has to fail in
> > order for Linux to succeed.
>
> I'm a card carrying linux fanboy because many years ago I realized
> I was being jerked around by the worlds largest software companies
> whose only goal was Global Lock-in and perpetual payment for
> unnecessary upgrades. I jumped on the linux bandwagon back when the
> desktop was still flaky, but I recognised that it was the last
> stronghold of software freedom, and by extension, personal freedom.

Patriotic music plays in the background as our hero wraps himself in
the flag of freedom... :)

> > For Linux to become a mainstream
> > operating system on the desktop, it needs to earn its place on
> > its merits, not just because Windows is supposedly so bad.
>
> LInux IS on the road to mainstream adoption based on it's technical
> merits, but I get my "back up" when I see one of the worlds richest
> companies foist its products on me and my government through
> back-room deals. Do you think that if they are allowed to
> re-engineer "core internet technologies", and impose province wide
> (or Canada wide) proprietary (ie. closed source) security methods,
> that any other software will be allowed survive such an ecosystem ?
> c'mon, their quest for world domination continues, and I'll have
> none of it ! djp

Have you finished beating up that straw man that you've so artfully
constructed? Do you have specific proof that Microsoft is engaging
in "back room deals" and presumably buying our Privacy Commissioner
or are you just engaging in hyperbole?
--
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis Corporation
3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1419
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

+1 416-410-3326
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20061020/0bbb3562/attachment.html>