Truth About Computer Security Hysteria

Comparing Vmyths to Ebert

Our columnists critique the computer security industry. We provide a sensible solution to hysteria by steering people toward deep thinking and away from shallow thinking.

I can rewrite Permeh's sentence as follows: "I am just asking Roger Ebert to not just debunk 'thumbs-way-down movies' but to also strive to provide a more sensible solution to Hollywood problems."

Ebert critiques the movie industry in general and films in particular. Likewise, Vmyths columnists critique the computer security industry in general and the antivirus industry in particular. "The purpose of a movie critic is to encourage good films and discourage bad ones," Ebert explains. Likewise, the purpose of Vmyths is to encourage deep thinking in computer security and discourage shallow thinking.

Ebert's criticism is a sensible solution to bad movies, and our criticism is likewise a sensible solution to computer security hysteria.

I use Ebert as my example for a very special reason — he personally explained his role to me in the 1970s. Much like Permeh challenged us, I challenged Ebert to describe the movie he'd make if given the chance. His short typewritten reply said it all: "I'd rather be a buff in the popcorn."

[Paraphrased, not an exact quote. Ebert's letter resides in a "teenage memories" box somewhere in my attic. I only like to rummage through the box when I feel maudlin.]

Does Permeh misunderstand the role our columnists play in this industry? Yes. Will I hold it against him? No. Too many people misunderstand the role of a critic in general, and I think Vmyths contributes to its own misunderstandings in particular. Even our own advertising team misunderstands us as you can see in this recent email:

You're doing a great job, so I don't want to nit-pick, but I guess I will anyway <grin>. I've been noticing for that over a month now, almost every single article in the newsletters (up to 10 or so per newsletter) are all about the Code Red hysteria, and NIPC-bashing, etc. Do we cover virus hoaxes any more? <grin>

All grins aside ... I've got serious concerns if our own folks don't understand our mission. I started making some changes around here to address those concerns, and I'll make some more changes in the very near future.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE added a new guided tour for first-time visitors. I also asked our webmaster to change our slogan from "truth about computer virus myths and hoaxes" to "truth about computer virus hysteria." And we'll tweak the 'About us' page to better define our columnists' roles as industry critics.

We'll formally "<CITE>" ourselves as a media outlet from this point forward (and we'll write it as Vmyths without the ".com").

I'll also resurrect some discussions with a top virus expert who bears a philosophy degree from Princeton. David Chess (IBM) understands the role we want to play — and he raised a few concerns I can't easily answer. I'll address his comments in future columns as part of my personal "open introspection" policy.

(Some people don't agree with my editorial decision to air our frailties. The argument is that we'll lose the "Mr. Tanner" readers who only see the flaws, but I believe we'd eventually lose those people anyway. Too many computer security sites seek the lowest common denominator in order to appeal to the masses. We'll do everything we can to win over the deep-thinking minority.)

Most important: we'll formally "<CITE>" ourselves as a media outlet from this point forward (and we'll write it as Vmyths without the ".com"). These changes & others should improve our status as the critical voice in computer security. Heaven knows the industry needs such a voice...

These changes should prove interesting. I hope you'll stick around. And, of course, I hope you'll send in your own suggestions for improvement...