Main Nav

Hey Educause…..any thoughts here? 

 

We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas – and THIS is allowed!?

 

Wow…..

 

From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM
To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL
Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

 

Michael,

 

I think your response was bad form.

I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM.

 

Let’s see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is.

 

Dennis Meharchand

CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc.

Cell: 416-618-4622

Email: dennis@valtx.com

Web: www.valtx.com

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL
Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's?

 

Bad form…..scare tactics…..bad publicity stunt…..how do we get the Educause moderator involved??

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's?

 

You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion.

 

Comments

Valerie and Rodney,

Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten legal action? 

What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of information between .edu's?

Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on an opinion expressed?


Mike Hanson
Network Security Manager
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811








Message from aperry@murraystate.edu

Well, as of this morning, their corporate site is down. So it looks like their groundbreaking method for guaranteed computer system security is to turn them off. They may have a point.

Drew Perry
Security Analyst
Murray State University
(270) 809-4414
aperry@murraystate.edu

P  Save a tree. Please consider the environment before printing this message.



There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that vendors tend to think differently than I do. - ken Hanson, Mike wrote: > Valerie and Rodney, > > Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten > legal action? > > What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of > information between .edu's? > > Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and > implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a > particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on > an opinion expressed? > > > Mike Hanson > Network Security Manager > The College of St. Scholastica > Duluth, MN 55811 > > > > > > > > >
Michael- Remarkable justification for limiting the EDUCAUSE lists to those with .edu addresses only. There are quite a few of us who have moved all responses off-list in order not to be farmed for contact information by vendors already, but this wins the award. I would encourage you to forward his response to CNM's legal counsel, as they probably need a good laugh. -- Todd Yates Executive Director, Technical Operations Information Technology Services 210-431-4217 (office) St. Mary's University One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 78228 This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of SCHALIP, MICHAEL [mschalip@CNM.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:42 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Hey Educause…..any thoughts here? We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas – and THIS is allowed!? Wow….. From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael, I think your response was bad form. I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM. Let’s see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is. Dennis Meharchand CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc. Cell: 416-618-4622 Email: dennis@valtx.com Web: www.valtx.com From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? Bad form…..scare tactics…..bad publicity stunt…..how do we get the Educause moderator involved?? From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion.

I was able to access the website. 

 

Does he realize how many potential customers both in retail and as potential investors he has lost through this display of inappropriate behavior? 

 

He gives vendors and other interested person who like to moderate the list to filter was is at the top of the lists for many Higher Ed institutions a bad name.  And we do have several good vendors who have been very good partners for Higher Ed and EDUCAUSE.  

 

 

 

Theresa Semmens, CISA

NDSU Chief Information Technology Security Officer

NDSU Dept. 4510

210D IACC, PO Box 6050

Fargo, ND 58108-6050

Office: 701-231-5870

Cell: 701-+212-2064

Theresa.Semmens@ndsu.edu

www.ndsu.edu/its/security

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Drew Perry
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 9:22 AM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

 

Well, as of this morning, their corporate site is down. So it looks like their groundbreaking method for guaranteed computer system security is to turn them off. They may have a point.


Drew Perry
Security Analyst
Murray State University
(270) 809-4414
aperry@murraystate.edu

 

P  Save a tree. Please consider the environment before printing this message.



Message from dsarazen@umassp.edu

I agree, but Perhaps he was having a bad day…

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Semmens, Theresa
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:34 AM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

 

I was able to access the website. 

 

Does he realize how many potential customers both in retail and as potential investors he has lost through this display of inappropriate behavior? 

 

He gives vendors and other interested person who like to moderate the list to filter was is at the top of the lists for many Higher Ed institutions a bad name.  And we do have several good vendors who have been very good partners for Higher Ed and EDUCAUSE.  

 

 

 

Theresa Semmens, CISA

NDSU Chief Information Technology Security Officer

NDSU Dept. 4510

210D IACC, PO Box 6050

Fargo, ND 58108-6050

Office: 701-231-5870

Cell: 701-+212-2064

Theresa.Semmens@ndsu.edu

www.ndsu.edu/its/security

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Drew Perry
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 9:22 AM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

 

Well, as of this morning, their corporate site is down. So it looks like their groundbreaking method for guaranteed computer system security is to turn them off. They may have a point.


Drew Perry
Security Analyst
Murray State University
(270) 809-4414
aperry@murraystate.edu

 

P  Save a tree. Please consider the environment before printing this message.

 

All - I have removed this particular vendor from the list. Hopefully we can bring this thread to a close. Just a few friendly reminders about this list: 1) EDUCAUSE Discussion Groups use an open, self-subscription protocol to encourage wide participation. List discussions are also publicly archived and fully searchable. (We understand there is some concern about the way this list is currently set up.) 2) Common Sense Rules: Unacceptable Use * Obscenity or profanity and inflammatory language are not acceptable. If you as a subscriber are concerned that such a communication has occurred, you are welcome to direct your complaint or protest directly to the offending subscriber, to the volunteer group leader for comment, and/or to EDUCAUSE staff for appropriate action. Please do so through private correspondence, rather than aggravating the situation by focusing group discussion on it. Thank you, Valerie _______________ Valerie M. Vogel Program Manager, EDUCAUSE office: (202) 331-5374 e-mail: vvogel@educause.edu _______________ Follow us on Twitter! @HEISCouncil -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Yates, Todd Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:22 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael- Remarkable justification for limiting the EDUCAUSE lists to those with .edu addresses only. There are quite a few of us who have moved all responses off-list in order not to be farmed for contact information by vendors already, but this wins the award. I would encourage you to forward his response to CNM's legal counsel, as they probably need a good laugh. -- Todd Yates Executive Director, Technical Operations Information Technology Services 210-431-4217 (office) St. Mary's University One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 78228 This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of SCHALIP, MICHAEL [mschalip@CNM.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:42 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Hey Educause.....any thoughts here? We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas - and THIS is allowed!? Wow..... From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael, I think your response was bad form. I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM. Let's see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is. Dennis Meharchand CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc. Cell: 416-618-4622 Email: dennis@valtx.com Web: www.valtx.com From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? Bad form.....scare tactics.....bad publicity stunt.....how do we get the Educause moderator involved?? From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion.
Valerie, Is there any room for discussion regarding your point #1 below? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Basgen Director of Client Services (Acting) & Information Security Officer Pima Community College Office: 520-206-4873 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:45 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice All - I have removed this particular vendor from the list. Hopefully we can bring this thread to a close. Just a few friendly reminders about this list: 1) EDUCAUSE Discussion Groups use an open, self-subscription protocol to encourage wide participation. List discussions are also publicly archived and fully searchable. (We understand there is some concern about the way this list is currently set up.) 2) Common Sense Rules: Unacceptable Use * Obscenity or profanity and inflammatory language are not acceptable. If you as a subscriber are concerned that such a communication has occurred, you are welcome to direct your complaint or protest directly to the offending subscriber, to the volunteer group leader for comment, and/or to EDUCAUSE staff for appropriate action. Please do so through private correspondence, rather than aggravating the situation by focusing group discussion on it. Thank you, Valerie _______________ Valerie M. Vogel Program Manager, EDUCAUSE office: (202) 331-5374 e-mail: vvogel@educause.edu _______________ Follow us on Twitter! @HEISCouncil -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Yates, Todd Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:22 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael- Remarkable justification for limiting the EDUCAUSE lists to those with .edu addresses only. There are quite a few of us who have moved all responses off-list in order not to be farmed for contact information by vendors already, but this wins the award. I would encourage you to forward his response to CNM's legal counsel, as they probably need a good laugh. -- Todd Yates Executive Director, Technical Operations Information Technology Services 210-431-4217 (office) St. Mary's University One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 78228 This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of SCHALIP, MICHAEL [mschalip@CNM.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:42 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Hey Educause.....any thoughts here? We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas - and THIS is allowed!? Wow..... From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael, I think your response was bad form. I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM. Let's see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is. Dennis Meharchand CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc. Cell: 416-618-4622 Email: dennis@valtx.com Web: www.valtx.com From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? Bad form.....scare tactics.....bad publicity stunt.....how do we get the Educause moderator involved?? From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion.
I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of helping > to enforce them. That said, the list is public and archived/available > on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list members, they can > still see what's been said. Even if that's removed or restricted to > EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and you have to presume > that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Valerie is reminding us about two things regarding this list. If you want more privacy and no vendors or outside interference you must use other avenues. It's the price we pay for being so open. thx steve -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Basgen, Brian Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:51 AM To: SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Valerie, Is there any room for discussion regarding your point #1 below? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Basgen Director of Client Services (Acting) & Information Security Officer Pima Community College Office: 520-206-4873 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:45 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice All - I have removed this particular vendor from the list. Hopefully we can bring this thread to a close. Just a few friendly reminders about this list: 1) EDUCAUSE Discussion Groups use an open, self-subscription protocol to encourage wide participation. List discussions are also publicly archived and fully searchable. (We understand there is some concern about the way this list is currently set up.) 2) Common Sense Rules: Unacceptable Use * Obscenity or profanity and inflammatory language are not acceptable. If you as a subscriber are concerned that such a communication has occurred, you are welcome to direct your complaint or protest directly to the offending subscriber, to the volunteer group leader for comment, and/or to EDUCAUSE staff for appropriate action. Please do so through private correspondence, rather than aggravating the situation by focusing group discussion on it. Thank you, Valerie _______________ Valerie M. Vogel Program Manager, EDUCAUSE office: (202) 331-5374 e-mail: vvogel@educause.edu _______________ Follow us on Twitter! @HEISCouncil -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Yates, Todd Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:22 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael- Remarkable justification for limiting the EDUCAUSE lists to those with .edu addresses only. There are quite a few of us who have moved all responses off-list in order not to be farmed for contact information by vendors already, but this wins the award. I would encourage you to forward his response to CNM's legal counsel, as they probably need a good laugh. -- Todd Yates Executive Director, Technical Operations Information Technology Services 210-431-4217 (office) St. Mary's University One Camino Santa Maria San Antonio, Texas 78228 This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of SCHALIP, MICHAEL [mschalip@CNM.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:42 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Hey Educause.....any thoughts here? We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas - and THIS is allowed!? Wow..... From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Michael, I think your response was bad form. I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM. Let's see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is. Dennis Meharchand CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc. Cell: 416-618-4622 Email: dennis@valtx.com Web: www.valtx.com From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? Bad form.....scare tactics.....bad publicity stunt.....how do we get the Educause moderator involved?? From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion.
What is the value of this openness to the .edu list participants when it does limit the discussion and therefore the usefulness of this list. Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:54 AM, Bradley, Stephen W. Mr. wrote: > Valerie is reminding us about two things regarding this list. If you want more privacy and no vendors or outside interference you must use other avenues. > > It's the price we pay for being so open. > > thx > > steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Basgen, Brian > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:51 AM > To: SECURITY@listserv.educause.edu > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > Valerie, > > Is there any room for discussion regarding your point #1 below? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Brian Basgen > Director of Client Services (Acting) > & Information Security Officer > Pima Community College > Office: 520-206-4873 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:45 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > All - I have removed this particular vendor from the list. Hopefully we can bring this thread to a close. > > Just a few friendly reminders about this list: > > 1) EDUCAUSE Discussion Groups use an open, self-subscription protocol to encourage wide participation. List discussions are also publicly archived and fully searchable. (We understand there is some concern about the way this list is currently set up.) > > 2) Common Sense Rules: Unacceptable Use > * Obscenity or profanity and inflammatory language are not acceptable. If you as a subscriber are concerned that such a communication has occurred, you are welcome to direct your complaint or protest directly to the offending subscriber, to the volunteer group leader for comment, and/or to EDUCAUSE staff for appropriate action. Please do so through private correspondence, rather than aggravating the situation by focusing group discussion on it. > > Thank you, > Valerie > _______________ > > Valerie M. Vogel > Program Manager, EDUCAUSE > office: (202) 331-5374 > e-mail: vvogel@educause.edu > _______________ > > Follow us on Twitter! @HEISCouncil > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Yates, Todd > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 7:22 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > Michael- > > Remarkable justification for limiting the EDUCAUSE lists to those with .edu addresses only. There are quite a few of us who have moved all responses off-list in order not to be farmed for contact information by vendors already, but this wins the award. > > I would encourage you to forward his response to CNM's legal counsel, as they probably need a good laugh. > > -- > Todd Yates > Executive Director, Technical Operations Information Technology Services > 210-431-4217 (office) > > St. Mary's University > One Camino Santa Maria > San Antonio, Texas 78228 > > > This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. > It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. > Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. > If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. > ________________________________ > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] on behalf of SCHALIP, MICHAEL [mschalip@CNM.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:42 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > Hey Educause.....any thoughts here? > > We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas - and THIS is allowed!? > > Wow..... > > From: Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis@valtx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM > To: SCHALIP, MICHAEL > Subject: RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > Michael, > > I think your response was bad form. > I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement lawsuit against CNM. > > Let's see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is. > > Dennis Meharchand > CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc. > Cell: 416-618-4622 > Email: dennis@valtx.com > Web: www.valtx.com > > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of SCHALIP, MICHAEL > Sent: December 7, 2011 9:34 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? > > Bad form.....scare tactics.....bad publicity stunt.....how do we get the Educause moderator involved?? > > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Walter Moore > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's? > > You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you have no business interjecting it into this discussion. > >
I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though.   Larry   --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson   ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of helping > to enforce them. That said, the list is public and archived/available > on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list members, they can > still see what's been said. Even if that's removed or restricted to > EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and you have to presume > that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. Thank you, Valerie -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though.   Larry   --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson   ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of > helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and > archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list > members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed > or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and > you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Message from sstelfox@vtc.vsc.edu

I know this can be a rough bit to swallow but this discussions seems to crop up every couple of years and I'd highly recommend everyone to find those threads before we start a new one. It can definitely be less than ideal to leave the lists open, but there are many people that are subscribed to this list legitimately from non-edu addresses. Personally, I think leaving it open so people from other industries can see our discussions is a huge benefit. The people on this list are intelligent, and thoughtful with their responses. These responses are indexed publicly and people with similar problems can see the points and counterpoints with each one. If a vendor violates the sanctity of that discussion, it's not because it's encouraged. More likely than not it was a thoughtless act by a vendor that chose not to read the rules, or if they have, chose not to abide by them. This is a disastrous decision on their part as it will cause them to lose more business than they gain as any respect they may have will be broken. There are also legitimate uses for vendor's being able to see these lists without harassing the members. By understanding what the current concerns and directions different organizations are heading in they can choose to adjust their products and provide better features for us all. This last point is small, and many may argue with it, but I personally consider it valid none-the-less. -- Regards, Sam Stelfox Network Administrator Vermont Technical College On 12/08/2011 10:54 AM, Chuck Dunn wrote: > I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses > and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login > credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't > expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone > who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public > forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. > > Chuck > > Charles F. Dunn > Information Security Officer > University at Buffalo > 716-645-3582 > > > On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: >> There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of helping >> to enforce them. That said, the list is public and archived/available >> on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list members, they can >> still see what's been said. Even if that's removed or restricted to >> EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and you have to presume >> that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. >> >> I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that >> vendors tend to think differently than I do. >> >> - ken >> >> Hanson, Mike wrote: >>> Valerie and Rodney, >>> >>> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >>> legal action? >>> >>> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >>> information between .edu's? >>> >>> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >>> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >>> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >>> an opinion expressed? >>> >>> >>> Mike Hanson >>> Network Security Manager >>> The College of St. Scholastica >>> Duluth, MN 55811 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
Message from iam@st-andrews.ac.uk

Like us :) -- ian -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel Sent: 08 December 2011 16:06 To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. Thank you, Valerie -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though.   Larry   --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson   ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of > helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and > archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list > members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed > or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and > you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Message from lwallace@unf.edu

While I hate to 'me too' this thread, Sam makes an excellent point. Since the days of BITNet this list has periodically gone through this discussion. Vendor representatives have provided a positive quality and a unique perspective to many of the discussions. It is a shame that the most recent vendor representative was an exception. Still, to change the culture of the list to account for one exception seems to be a bit extreme. Layne Layne Wallace School of Computing University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL 32224 On 12/8/2011 11:06 AM, Sam Stelfox wrote: > I know this can be a rough bit to swallow but this discussions seems to > crop up every couple of years and I'd highly recommend everyone to find > those threads before we start a new one. It can definitely be less than > ideal to leave the lists open, but there are many people that are > subscribed to this list legitimately from non-edu addresses. > > Personally, I think leaving it open so people from other industries can > see our discussions is a huge benefit. The people on this list are > intelligent, and thoughtful with their responses. These responses are > indexed publicly and people with similar problems can see the points and > counterpoints with each one. > > If a vendor violates the sanctity of that discussion, it's not because > it's encouraged. More likely than not it was a thoughtless act by a > vendor that chose not to read the rules, or if they have, chose not to > abide by them. This is a disastrous decision on their part as it will > cause them to lose more business than they gain as any respect they may > have will be broken. > > There are also legitimate uses for vendor's being able to see these > lists without harassing the members. By understanding what the current > concerns and directions different organizations are heading in they can > choose to adjust their products and provide better features for us all. > This last point is small, and many may argue with it, but I personally > consider it valid none-the-less. >
I agree completely. And rather than prune the quoted text I'm leaving it here to emphasize Sam's well written points. An open list has real value. When a closed discussion on a particular point is needed, there are other approaches that may be suitable including things as simple as a conference call or an email message directed to a subset of list members, or as complex/sophisticated as a collaboration space with limited membership. I believe that the open access Educause lists serve some very positive purposes and I'd "vote" for leaving them as they are. One guy's opinion, ^Deke
Message from valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:54:30 EST, Chuck Dunn said: > I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses > and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login > credentials. And you enforce that access on the *other* sites archiving the list, how, exactly? Your answer should be both (a) technically feasible and (b) if not fully automatic and 100% accurate, should explain who is going to pay for the manpower to actually do it. Similar issues for "only allow .edu subscribers" - that doesn't cover non-US Educause members. And although Listserv *does* support making a list "Subscribe = by-owner" to force owner vetting of subscriptions, it also means an added workload for the list owner and additional headache (guess who once got dragged into a major small-arms skirmish that got sparked by a "by-owner" list where the owner went on maternity leave? ;) Quick check - what percent of subscribers even have educause login credentials? How many would end up having to get said credentials *only* for accessing the archives? And is it a good idea to encourage people to get credentials that can access multiple things in order to access one thing (how many *other* sites accept educause login credentials for various purposes)?
For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list. -------------------------------------- Darrell Bateman Assistant Vice President for IT and ISO Office of the Chief Information Officer Information Technology Division Texas Tech University -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:06 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. Thank you, Valerie -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though. Larry --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of > helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and > archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list > members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed > or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and > you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Message from mclaugkl@ucmail.uc.edu

Ditto unless it is generic and opinion type of stuff. - Kevin Kevin L. McLaughlin,  CISM, CISSP, GIAC-GSLC, CRISC, PMP, ITIL Master Certified Assistant Vice President and CISO University of Cincinnati 513-556-9177   The University of Cincinnati is one of America's top public research institutions and one of the region's largest employers, with a student population of more than 42,700. -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bateman, Darrell Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:31 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list. -------------------------------------- Darrell Bateman Assistant Vice President for IT and ISO Office of the Chief Information Officer Information Technology Division Texas Tech University -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:06 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. Thank you, Valerie -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though. Larry --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: > There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of > helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and > archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list > members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed > or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and > you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. > > I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that > vendors tend to think differently than I do. > > - ken > > Hanson, Mike wrote: >> Valerie and Rodney, >> >> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >> legal action? >> >> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >> information between .edu's? >> >> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >> an opinion expressed? >> >> >> Mike Hanson >> Network Security Manager >> The College of St. Scholastica >> Duluth, MN 55811 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list. Same here. I am much more likely to respond only to the creator of the thread, which (I realize) limits the usefulness of the list. I am much more likely to create a thread on a separate closed list than on this one. ~Jonny
Message from harry@marist.edu

On 12/8/2011 11:12 AM, Layne Wallace wrote: > While I hate to 'me too' this thread, Sam makes an excellent point. > Since the days of BITNet this list has periodically gone through this > discussion. Vendor representatives have provided a positive quality > and a unique perspective to many of the discussions. It is a shame > that the most recent vendor representative was an exception. Still, to > change the culture of the list to account for one exception seems to > be a bit extreme. While I agree that the intrusion by the specific vendor was inappropriate, I would also suggest that we ignore his tone, and examine the content. Make sure you have patent defense and indemnification in your vendor contracts. We seem to go through this every couple years as vendors get into #$%#@% matches over technology X with us as collateral damage. It's been GIFs, it's been streaming media, it's been LMS.... I would also agree that open discussion is worth the very occasional intrusions. /ahw > > Layne > > Layne Wallace > School of Computing > University of North Florida > Jacksonville, FL 32224 > > On 12/8/2011 11:06 AM, Sam Stelfox wrote: >> I know this can be a rough bit to swallow but this discussions seems to >> crop up every couple of years and I'd highly recommend everyone to find >> those threads before we start a new one. It can definitely be less than >> ideal to leave the lists open, but there are many people that are >> subscribed to this list legitimately from non-edu addresses. >> >> Personally, I think leaving it open so people from other industries can >> see our discussions is a huge benefit. The people on this list are >> intelligent, and thoughtful with their responses. These responses are >> indexed publicly and people with similar problems can see the points and >> counterpoints with each one. >> >> If a vendor violates the sanctity of that discussion, it's not because >> it's encouraged. More likely than not it was a thoughtless act by a >> vendor that chose not to read the rules, or if they have, chose not to >> abide by them. This is a disastrous decision on their part as it will >> cause them to lose more business than they gain as any respect they may >> have will be broken. >> >> There are also legitimate uses for vendor's being able to see these >> lists without harassing the members. By understanding what the current >> concerns and directions different organizations are heading in they can >> choose to adjust their products and provide better features for us all. >> This last point is small, and many may argue with it, but I personally >> consider it valid none-the-less. >>
Let's not forget one thing. The discussion can continue. Nothing that vendor did is restricting the discussion. I don't see why anything has to change. Every now and then we run the risk of something like this happening. It did, we dealt with it and now we can get back to the original discussion.

-Randy Marchany
VA Tech IT Security Office & Lab

Thanks Valerie.  This is a tough thing to work through to be sure.  There are valid arguments for private and public lists.  Personally, I tend to fall into the camp that believes that that EduCause lists should be limited to educational institutions.  Like many, my contact information has been harvested by many vendors, and every time I discuss an issue I somehow auto-magically get contacted by vendors whom I did not solicit.  My goal in using EduCause lists is to work with other brethren in the Educational community, not vendors.

I also understand many of non US educational institutions may not have a .EDU domain.

So, to that end I have two questions, trying to think outside of the "box" so to speak.

1)  Could EduCause email list subscription requests reference a list of accredited Higher Ed institution domains world wide for authorization for inclusion?

2) Could EduCause setup a "separate"  Public list for members, vendors and others?  In this way, existing EduCause lists could be used by accredited institutions to discuss things internally, and the additional list could be used as a "reach out" list for those wanting to solicit input from a more global community?  It seems to me, many of our conversations on these lists deal with campus processes (likely boring to vendors), and it's only when certain technologies are discussed that vendors may or may not be of value, and your members could then decide to inquire to internal members, or open the discussion to the larger community including vendors.

---
Dave Koontz
Mary Baldwin College


On 12/8/2011 11:05 AM, Valerie Vogel wrote:
Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. Thank you, Valerie -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though.   Larry   --- Larry Carson Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. The University of British Columbia Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson   ----- Original Message ----- From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv <SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU <SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. Chuck Charles F. Dunn Information Security Officer University at Buffalo 716-645-3582 On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote:
There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that vendors tend to think differently than I do. - ken Hanson, Mike wrote:
Valerie and Rodney, Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten legal action? What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of information between .edu's? Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on an opinion expressed? Mike Hanson Network Security Manager The College of St. Scholastica Duluth, MN 55811
Message from educause-lists@nathanielhall.com

I don't contribute to this list very often, but I do take issue with blocking non-EDU addresses. I am a *former* EDU employee who owns a consulting business and who will recommend a product if I truly believe it is appropriate. I don't harvest email addresses and I push products because I make money off of a sale. I don't. I see the value that exists in the list thus I watch the list for interesting discussions. Why punish those like me who follow the rules? I believe there are some discussions that probably discussed in an open list like this, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty to be had. When I used the list more I had discussions but, as with all Internet accessible discussions, you must be careful what you share. There is one highly restricted group that I know of where people still limit their discussions and it isn't exactly easy to become a member. Just because the list isn't directly public doesn't mean the information is any more secure. Lastly, I use a dedicated email address for these (and other) mailing lists in order to prevent harvesting my primary email addresses. -- Nathaniel Hall I am many things, but I am not a laywer, accountant, or agent of the federal, state, or local government. On 12/08/2011 10:30 AM, Bateman, Darrell wrote: > For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list. > > -------------------------------------- > Darrell Bateman > Assistant Vice President for IT and ISO > Office of the Chief Information Officer > Information Technology Division > Texas Tech University > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:06 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > > Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. > Thank you, > Valerie > > -----Original Message----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though. > > > Larry > > --- > Larry Carson > Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. > The University of British Columbia > Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv > To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 > Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice > > I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login > credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't > expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone > who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. > > Chuck > > Charles F. Dunn > Information Security Officer > University at Buffalo > 716-645-3582 > > > On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: >> There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of >> helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and >> archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list >> members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed >> or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and >> you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. >> >> I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that >> vendors tend to think differently than I do. >> >> - ken >> >> Hanson, Mike wrote: >>> Valerie and Rodney, >>> >>> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >>> legal action? >>> >>> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >>> information between .edu's? >>> >>> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >>> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >>> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >>> an opinion expressed? >>> >>> >>> Mike Hanson >>> Network Security Manager >>> The College of St. Scholastica >>> Duluth, MN 55811 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
Message from tzeller@unicon.net

Me too, I have more than one email address, one of which is .edu. Could someone send me a link to the patent infringement, please ? I just saw free speech. Thanks, TomZ On Dec 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Nathaniel Hall wrote: > I don't contribute to this list very often, but I do take issue with blocking non-EDU addresses. I am a *former* EDU employee who owns a consulting business and who will recommend a product if I truly believe it is appropriate. I don't harvest email addresses and I push products because I make money off of a sale. I don't. I see the value that exists in the list thus I watch the list for interesting discussions. Why punish those like me who follow the rules? > > I believe there are some discussions that probably discussed in an open list like this, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty to be had. When I used the list more I had discussions but, as with all Internet accessible discussions, you must be careful what you share. There is one highly restricted group that I know of where people still limit their discussions and it isn't exactly easy to become a member. Just because the list isn't directly public doesn't mean the information is any more secure. > > Lastly, I use a dedicated email address for these (and other) mailing lists in order to prevent harvesting my primary email addresses. > > -- > Nathaniel Hall > > I am many things, but I am not a laywer, accountant, or agent of the federal, state, or local government. > > > > On 12/08/2011 10:30 AM, Bateman, Darrell wrote: >> For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Darrell Bateman >> Assistant Vice President for IT and ISO >> Office of the Chief Information Officer >> Information Technology Division >> Texas Tech University >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Valerie Vogel >> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:06 AM >> To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice >> >> >> Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may unintentionally exclude some institutions. >> Thank you, >> Valerie >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carson, Larry >> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM >> To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice >> >> I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though. >> >> >> Larry >> >> --- >> Larry Carson >> Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable. >> The University of British Columbia >> Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv >> To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011 >> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice >> >> I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to those with Educause login >> credentials. We can protect future discussions even if we can't >> expunge the past archives from the public space. In my view, anyone >> who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about who is reading the posts. >> >> Chuck >> >> Charles F. Dunn >> Information Security Officer >> University at Buffalo >> 716-645-3582 >> >> >> On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote: >>> There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of >>> helping to enforce them. That said, the list is public and >>> archived/available on the web. Even if vendors and trolls aren't list >>> members, they can still see what's been said. Even if that's removed >>> or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and >>> you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains. >>> >>> I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that >>> vendors tend to think differently than I do. >>> >>> - ken >>> >>> Hanson, Mike wrote: >>>> Valerie and Rodney, >>>> >>>> Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten >>>> legal action? >>>> >>>> What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of >>>> information between .edu's? >>>> >>>> Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and >>>> implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a >>>> particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on >>>> an opinion expressed? >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike Hanson >>>> Network Security Manager >>>> The College of St. Scholastica >>>> Duluth, MN 55811 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
Message from pete@shadows.uottawa.ca

Note that, with more and more places letting their alumni keep their email address, a .edu may only mean that someone graduated. -- Pete Hickey LITTLE KNOWN FACT: The University of Ottawa Did you know that 90% of North Ottawa, Ontario Americans cannot taste the difference Canada between fried dog and fried cat.
I do not think it even means "someone graduated". The definition of "alumni" changes from institution to institution. If an institution gives an alias to alumni, then it is possible that students who only took a few classes are alumni, and therefore can have their edu alias…. So, nothing can be inferred from the makeup of an email address other than to say that the person using it was, at one time, affiliated with this institution (student, employee, donor, etc). The address really says nothing about the current situation of the person. --Jason
Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.