Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> They may not care about ethics, but they care about risk. Can you
> imagine the headlines if someone could prove that Microsoft is
> contaminating pro-Linux web sites with malware that targets Windows?
Well that's what shell companies, shills and other proxies are for, so
Microsoft doesn't need to take the heat for their criminal actions. Of
course there is rarely any proof; if you have the money to set up a
global infrastructure the size of Microsoft, then you can certainly set
up shadow-infrastructures for other tasks. Some shadows are more
noticeable than others however. Take IP Innovation LLC, for example.
Even so, with an organisation of that size, total containment is quite
impossible, and there are inevitable leaks. That's what they employ spin
doctors for, to turn such bad PR into something seemingly innocuous. The
Swedish bribery scandal is a fairly typical example ... "overzealous
staff". Yeah, right.
> Aside from the impact on public trust, the feds would launch an
> investigation
Given the way congressmen fawn over Gates, I doubt very much if the FBI
would ever even begin such an investigation:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/12/ldt.schiavone.h1b.visas.cnn?iref=videosearch
Like I said ... above the law.
> This is the same kind of reasoning the MI-5 guy uses to convince
> himself he is the target of a massive psy-ops program
Right ... it's all just conspiracy theory.
Look at that video again.
Power corrupts. That isn't supposition.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
20:19:54 up 87 days, 17:55, 5 users, load average: 0.21, 0.87, 0.53
|
|
