This article is more than 1 year old
Bill Gates spams the world on Trustworthy Computing
Integrity? He's heard of it too...
Today you will probably have already read that Bill Gates says that the famous Microsoft security review of this year took twice as long as expected, and cost $100 million. These are the obvious bullet points from an unsolicited email His Billness sent to large numbers of unsuspecting subscribers to Microsoft newsletters, but don't be to hard on the lad.
This is a one-time mailing only, and if you don't ever want to hear from him again you can just do nothing. Otherwise, you need to go here if you want to hear from Bill and other execs in the future, so it's opt-in, right?. You may note in passing, should you have got that far, that this appears to be that most remarkable of things, a Microsoft service that doesn't require Passport.
However, rather than being impressed by the length and the cost of the review (not to mention the precision of the project management and the tedium of the email), we were more taken by the following, which we reproduce without comment on the basis that it is beyond satire:
"Trustworthy Computing has four pillars: reliability, security, privacy and business integrity.
"Reliability means that a computer system is dependable, is available when needed, and performs as expected and at appropriate levels.
"Security means that a system is resilient to attack, and that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of both the system and its data are protected.
"Privacy means that individuals have the ability to control data about themselves and that those using such data faithfully adhere to fair information principles.
"Business Integrity is about companies in our industry being responsible to customers and helping them find appropriate solutions for their business issues, addressing problems with products or services, and being open in interactions with customers."
One is drawn inexorably to Tom Lehrer's reaction to Henry Kissinger's Nobel prize. But we're baffled that in this case the review only cost $100 million and took twice as long as expected. ®