The BBC published a self-justification of sorts over the Click fiasco on Friday 13th March: when I came upon it the following morning, I posted a comment there, pointing out Mark Perrow had addressed the issues this industry hadn’t complained about, and ignored the issues that we were concerned about.
My comment is number 14, if you’re interested, but if so, you might want to hurry up, before the BBC delete it. Graham Cluley also commented, very politely and very comprehensively, and the comment was deleted. According to the mail they sent him and the web page itself, (see comment number 47), this was because he broke the house rules.
If you can see what rule it was that he broke, please let him (and me) know, as he’s as puzzled as I am. I’m pretty sure that embarrassing the BBC isn’t against the rules.
So, since I’m almost as fed up with the topic as the BBC seem to be, let’s think about what this programme really achieved.
The question is, what was achieved that couldn’t have been achieved by legal, ethical means, avoiding the need for the criminal fraternity to become a little richer while experiencing no apparent negative impact at all? Apart, of course, from a story that attracted notoriety rather than universal admiration…
David Harley BA CISSP FBCS CITP
Director of Malware Intelligence
Author David Harley, We Live Security