I have gotten a reasoned response from the technology editor of the Washington Post, and we are discussing things. While I wouldn't have done it that way, he had a rational explanation of why the story was written the way it was, and definitely indicating there will be continuing coverage of the issue. He believes there's always room for improving coverage.
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I have gotten a reasoned response from the technology editor of the Washington Post, and we are discussing things. While I wouldn't have done it that way, he had a rational explanation of why the story was written the way it was, and definitely indicating there will be continuing coverage of the issue. He believes there's always room for improving coverage.
Care to share?
Eliot
I was thinking about that, and now have a very red face. Eudora, for some reason (out of storage without a message?) seems to have lost about an hour of outbox messages. I'm hoping to get a copy sent back to me.
In any event, in working with media, there's a time where some level of confidentiality is useful, when you are building the relationship and giving background. Let me summarize that the Post initially saw this more as a business than technology issue, and gave Verisign its chance to tell its side of the story. I believe the relevant editor now believes the issue is much more complex.
I'd want his permission to share the specific response.
Howard
In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think that
Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright
investigative reporter for one of the major publications.
In these days of corporate malfeasance scandal coverage, you'd think that
Verisign's tactics would have whetted the appetite of some bright
investigative reporter for one of the major publications.
Too difficult and obscure a topic to make interesting. Its even worse than the S&L scandal of the 80s. Things like ice statues pissing vodka at private million dollar parties are easy to cover in that a picture says it all.... There is no easy way to convey this issue to the general public in just a few words and at the same time not put them to sleep....
---Mike
"Verisign Highjacks Internet"
That should work 
"The company which manages all .com & .net domain names recently decided to redirect any and all type-os to their own servers, angering every Network Operator on the planet. They did this with absolutely no advanced warning or public comment period.
This has the makings of a war which could shake the foundations of the web and change the way users get to web pages."
Hrmm, yer right, probably not spicy enough for today's tabloids. Maybe a reporter could say something about "lining their pockets using a monopoly" or "battling titans like AOL and Microsoft", but those are not very technical arguments.