J.D. Falk wrote:
On 16/01/2009 03:50, "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
Perhaps it's time to amend the ASRG charter to exclude easily
visualized but actually hypothetical threats. If you disagree that
they're hypothetical, first you have to go get real data to support
your claim.
However, I wouldn't mind discussion about /how/ to get real data....
It seems to me to be part of a process. A "threat model" comes up, and
we remember that part of the discussion should be to figure out how
likely/possible/extant they really are.
Indeed, if you don't think a threat model is realistic, it's kinda hard
to prove that it isn't - proving a negative.
In the discussion at hand, I wasn't able to give concise quantitative
numbers. Because they are, to a great degree, unknowable. What I did
instead was to show, by inference/within orders of magnitude, that i
wasn't happening with _huge_ numbers of "supposedly dangerous actions"
(rejecting).
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg