Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC slander

[Alex Hudson]

On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 16:08, P.L.Hayes wrote:
> The article smears a whole community rather than isolated individuals
> who may or may not have dubious claim to membership of that community
> - how is that justified by the response? How does Evans know the
> identity(s) and affiliations of the as yet unknown attackers? etc.
> etc.

I don't think they have to be able to prove something like that. The
article is talking specifically about motivation, and that is very hard
to argue against. It's the case that SCO were attacked because of their
lawsuit. Now, of course, you can argue that the attack is a cover for a
spam run operation, but the original motive (in terms of victim
selection) still stands. 

The only smear that I can find is:

        "So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus
        and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge. 
        
        "SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred
        principles, as they would see it. 
        
        "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories
        at the top of any investigator's list."

It suggests that it's a reasonable assumption that someone attacked SCO
directly because of their attack on Linux. The spam stuff is a rather
effective cover-story. I don't think that's an unreasonable claim, and
it does state there's "no proof, of course". I can't really find a
sentence I would call "inaccurate", although I would disagree with
plenty of them. 

> On the complaint site there is actually a link to OfCOM (IIRC) but
> I've a feeling you're right anyway and that would leave only the
> Governors after the PCU.

Post-Hutton, there was a lot of discussion over whether or not the BBC
should be OfCOM-regulated. I think, despite the noise being made, that
it's unlikely to happen ('due to the unique way ..' blah blah). 

Cheers,

Alex.