Let’s dip into the mailbag once again – it’s been too long.
A column scoffing at IBM’s contention that “40% of all computer users use the word ‘password’ as their password” prompted many of you to offer your own scoffs – and a few to rise to IBM’s defense.
“Thanks for calling IBM on their ‘40% use password’ contention,” writes Benjamin Vogel. “It is dumb, unfounded statements like this that make it into the public psyche. . . . I think everyone agrees that we need to take security seriously. The way to make us secure is not to make stuff up – which seems to be something large security companies are fond of doing.”
Another reader says any such 40% cannot include his co-workers.
“In our organization this would be impossible because we have minimum password complexity algorithms in place,” writes Don Anderson. “We require passwords to have three of the following four elements: upper case, lower case, numbers and symbols.”
As for those backing Big Blue:
“My experience says that 40% is low – try 60%,” says Lou Yovin.
Another needing no convincing asked that his name not be used.
“IBM’s 40% figure for ‘password’ as passwords doesn’t surprise me,” says this fellow. “Our company is highly decentralized with IT handled at each of 60-plus sites except for a few corporate policies. Of course, the latest thing in corporate policy is Sarbanes-Oxley, and a co-worker who helped audit four sites says two of them used ‘password.’ Another one I helped on was the same. Obviously, Sarbanes-Oxley may be whittling away at IBM’s statistic, but eliminate publicly traded companies and I’ll bet the percentage is still pretty huge.”
My spirited defense of Internet vote-swapping schemes drew much criticism.
“Your article seems to suggest that this practice of vote swapping is morally upright regardless of the legality,” writes Charlie Bruce.
I didn’t mean to suggest any such thing; my intent was to state that position unequivocally.
“Do you spin back your odometer too?” Bruce continues.
No, that would be illegal . . . and I can barely put gas in a car, never mind monkey with the innards.
The flak generated by that column included the usual chorus of “keep politics out of Network World” complaints, so I penned another piece explaining why we ignore such gripes. Much to my everlasting appreciation, a significant number of readers offered their applause.
“It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree with you on a given issue. I enjoy reading your column – even the politically colored ones,” writes Howard Stewart. “As for those readers who complain about the content, were they chained to a chair and forced to read? ‘News, insights, opinions and oddities’ [as seen in the column logo above] explains it all quite well.”
A like-minded soul sees the issue in patriotic terms.
“You have the right to print what you want. The readers have the right to read it or not, and the advertisers can continue to buy space or not,” offers Jerry White. “For all those who complained, how many didn’t? Let the market figure it out. Those who are offended can walk, and the rest of us can stick around for the next network-based political morsel. God bless the First Amendment.”
Finally, a cautionary tale about promiscuous e-mail practices that focused on a public posting of 1.5 million messages between 176 former Enron employees and their correspondents piqued the curiosity of a few readers.
“I loved your article, and it left me wanting more,” writes James Wilson. “I don’t know about the rest of your readers but I would like to rummage through those Enron e-mails myself. Any chance you could point me in the right direction?”
Glad to help: Read them here.
Send more. The address is buzz@nww.com.
