<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM, wesley kiriinya <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kiriinya2000@yahoo.com">kiriinya2000@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" valign="top">
<font size="2">
<div>I believe that the ICT bill makes it illegal for someone to reveal security holes in IT systems. However doesn't investigative journalism stories like the recent "</div></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">The Rogue Tracker</font><font size="2">" reveal 'security holes'? So what makes that legal? If one was to discover a security hole in a system, then one can do their own investigative journalism then reveal everything about the security hole.</font>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div>
<div><font size="3">I believe the tracking system is an IT system. And it seems a security hole was revealed. It's like saying half of the companies that claim to have installed a particular firewall might not really have the firewall installed.</font></div>
</td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br>Wesley,<br><br>You are trying to impose this analogy where it doesn't quite belong:-)<br>In the case of the tracking system, there was no security hole per se, but a case of fraud. The tracking device was NOT installed. The case ends there.<br>
Trying to see that as a "firewall that wasn't installed" is quite off tangent, imho.<br><br></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Best regards,<br>Odhiambo WASHINGTON,<br>Nairobi,KE<br>+254733744121/+254722743223<br>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <br>"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."<br> -- Mark Twain<br>