Now, I'm no hacker, but there's obvious interest in the story of Michael Lynn, who blew the whistle on a security loophole in Cisco routers (which are pretty important to the structure and strength of the net).
Back story: Lynn - a reseacher for Internet Security Systems - resigned from his job, and then gave a public talk about the vulnerabilities he'd found in Cisco's router software. Cisco and ISS, which say Lynn was breaching the terms of his contract, have had as much of his material removed from the public domain, and started legal action against Lynn.
He says the information is better public, but came to a settlement on Friday which effectively gags him from saying anything more.
Yet another freedom of speech case, yet another attempt to get the security cat back in the big bag marked "for our eyes only". The law can protect whistleblowers in some circumstances. It doesn't look much like Lynn felt the law could save him, though.
They might not have the courts on their side, but are whistleblowers like Lynn justified?
