Brian wrote:
> That means I can clarify why my much hated factual correction was
> appropriate. Here was the original statement:
>
>> If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
>
> Let's briefly suppose that there are binaries for mediawiki (which is false
> - but suppose they
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:51 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor
>
> >:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni wrote:
> >> I wouldn't bet on that
> >
> > No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
>
> No. But we know that accidental security issues slip
2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor :
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni wrote:
>> I wouldn't bet on that
>
> No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
No. But we know that accidental security issues slip through. Betting
you can beat the NSA's ability to hide deliberate
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni wrote:
> I wouldn't bet on that
No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
> The case was the wikia case with the CIA replacing wikia. How close
> would we be prepared to let WMF people get to the CIA. In theory as
> long as t
2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor :
> This is a fairly silly topic, but I'll say two things:
>
> 1) If the CIA or NSA or whoever contributed source code, we would
> review them like any other patches. Period. If they're committing
> illegal activities or whatever, that's something for the courts to
> rule o
This is a fairly silly topic, but I'll say two things:
1) If the CIA or NSA or whoever contributed source code, we would
review them like any other patches. Period. If they're committing
illegal activities or whatever, that's something for the courts to
rule on, and is no business of ours. Our
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/25 geni :
> > 2009/1/25 David Gerard :
>
> >> Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and
> >> enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
>
>
I suspect any significant changes they have made will not be made available
for r
2009/1/25 geni :
> 2009/1/25 David Gerard :
>> Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and
>> enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
> We don't know much about what they have done but most of their
> developments are more likely to be of interest to corporate wikis than
> wikipedi
2009/1/25 David Gerard :
> Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and
> enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
We don't know much about what they have done but most of their
developments are more likely to be of interest to corporate wikis than
wikipedia.
--
geni
_
That means I can clarify why my much hated factual correction was
appropriate. Here was the original statement:
> If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
Let's briefly suppose that there are binaries for mediawiki (which is false
- but suppose they only gave you byte code fo
2009/1/25 Dan Rosenthal :
> Yeah, agreed. While on-topic for the list, it's off-topic for this
> thread. U.S. intelligence agency involvement in the development of
> open source products, especially media wiki, however *IS* a topic I am
> very much interested in seeing further discussion about; to
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Alex wrote:
> I'm criticizing the switch from "Wikia leasing office space to WMF" to
> "Is the CIA evil?" I just responded to the most recent email in my
> inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all
> 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not cr
12 matches
Mail list logo
