When cars were new, and the means of generating power for
them, getting the power to the wheels, and safety features such as
rear-view mirrors were non-existant, someone who'd put their family in
a car they hadn't carefully inspected was either very brave or
Cars were powered by steam, gas, electricity and coal. At
least steam had something of a propensity for blowing up.
When a steam powered car blew up, what happened was pretty
obvious. When a badly designed/installed firewall is penetrated, and
the people who installed it aren't interested in security, the
penetration may not even be detected, never mind publicised. So the
ability of the market to make informed decisions may be lacking.
Asking vendors to provide full information to the customers is a means
of addressing the paucity of real information about what works in the
Kent Crispin wrote:
| Michael S. Fischer allegedly said:
| > I hate to be so supercilious, but anyone who cares so little about the
| > strength of a security-related product that he/she forgets about the
| > implications of peer source code review probably shouldn't be in charge
| > of purchasing such software.
| I hate to be supercilious, but anyone who cares so little about the
| safety of their family that doesn't personally inspect the blueprints,
| design documents, and construction facility for any automobile they
| purchase shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
"Every year the Republicans campaign like Libertarians, and then go to
Wasthington and spend like Democrats."
Vote Harry Browne for President. http://www.harrybrowne96.org