Risk
10/28/2009
12:25 PM
Bob Evans
Bob Evans
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Global CIO: Greenpeace Shakedown Targets Google, Microsoft, And IBM

Greenpeace is mounting a major assault on the business practices of not just those three companies but the entire IT industry. They will lie to get what they want--and here's the proof.

Don't be fooled by the name. The assault on the IT industry by this "pressure group" isn't about preventing the oceans from boiling—it's about forcing its no-growth, anticapitalism ideology down the throats of IBM, Google, Microsoft, and any other IT company that doesn't kowtow to its backward agenda, even if those comapanies' products have improved the lives of billions of people around the world. Don't be fooled by the name.

I will share in a moment a striking 100-second video clip of an interview from a few months ago with the Dear Leader of Greenpeace in which he freely admits that his "pressure group" is willing to lie to try to push its causes. Those causes are universally opposed to the big businesses that employ hundreds of thousands directly and many millions indirectly, that create the products and services that enrich our lives and those of our children, and that create the profits that go to people who choose to donate to outfits like Greenpeace.

But first let me touch on their new assault on the IT industry, which the shakedown artists believe is polluting the Earth and destroying life as we know it and yadda-yadda-yadda. In some ways, the assault on the IT industry—including, perhaps, the company you work for—is a flanking maneuver around the real target, which is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

And the anarchists are after the Chamber because it dared to defy their demands for deconstructing private enterprise in this country, for a return to the days of hunters and gatherers, and for a general agreement that capitalism and free enterprise are the causes of all evil on this planet. The Chamber opposed that nonsense because it believes—as do most Americans along with the leaders of Microsoft, IBM, and Google—that businesses are being gracious stewards of the Earth and that they don't need to follow the dogma of this self-styled "pressure group."

From a recent communique dispatched by its Ministry of Propaganda under the headline "Greenpeace To I.T. Sector: Step Up Climate Action, Distance Yourselves From U.S. Chamber Of Commerce," the shakedown artists called out IBM and Google and Microsoft and attempted to intimidate them into committing to a series of actions that might make the greenies smile but that would be harmful to those three companies, their shareholders, and their employees. (Three cheers for those companies—they deserve support from all the rest of us!!)

Here are a few examples of the favored shut-up-and-do-it-my-way rhetoric these shakedown artists used in their communique to those three great companies that would certainly have to fire many of their approximately 325,000 employees around the world if they were to agree to the shakedown demands:

With crucial political negotiations coming to a head in Copenhagen and Capitol Hill, IT industry heavyweights Google, Microsoft and IBM still hesitate to speak up on the urgent need for emissions reductions . . . .

Instead, IT companies continue to fund the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's regressive and destructive stance on climate issues, even when unaligned with their own climate policies.

IT giants like Microsoft, Google and IBM need to put their weight behind a strong deal at Copenhagen now, or else the world will lose out again to dirty industry’s negative lobbying and the U.S. Chamber’s campaign to deny sound science and public support for progress.

Don't be fooled the by name. And don't fool yourself into believing that the shakedown artists gave one second's thought to the implications their demands would have on competitiveness or employment—if several thousand or tens of thousands of people in the IT industry have to lose their jobs so that the shakedown artists can gain more control over global policies that lead to deindustrialization and zero economic growth, what the hell should they care? Here's the proof:

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-5485
Published: 2014-09-30
registerConfiglet.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via unspecified vectors, related to the admin interface.

CVE-2012-5486
Published: 2014-09-30
ZPublisher.HTTPRequest._scrubHeader in Zope 2 before 2.13.19, as used in Plone before 4.3 beta 1, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers via a linefeed (LF) character.

CVE-2012-5487
Published: 2014-09-30
The sandbox whitelisting function (allowmodule.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote authenticated users with certain privileges to bypass the Python sandbox restriction and execute arbitrary Python code via vectors related to importing.

CVE-2012-5488
Published: 2014-09-30
python_scripts.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via a crafted URL, related to createObject.

CVE-2012-5489
Published: 2014-09-30
The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.