From kingsfull's article Re: McAfee
I read the article and usual these folks make statements that are, well, not very accurate.
Here is an example.
The only time that Maiwald can envisage a demand of proof of protection might be in the courtroom where a company would demonstrate to the satisfaction of a plaintiff and a judge that specific information had been encrypted and therefore a security breech had not occurred following the loss of a computing device. But that kind of application is a rare occurrence, he noted. "We just haven't seen that yet."
My question for the board would be has this Mr. Maiwald seen a newspaper, read any articles regarding this loss of a laptop with personal info it, or anything before making a comment like this?
Secondarily, please correct me if I am wrong, but is this not what Wave's audit trail does exactly and is the reason for it?
Oh, please excuse my rudeness. I have been a very long time follower of this company and I did want to express my appreciation also to those who have posted their notes and taken their time to attend the ASHM in NewYork. Your news and comments are invaluable.
Lastly, did anyone take notice of that list of companies that was posted and go through it? That is some list of names.
I wonder if Wave will be able to use these companies as references to either potentially new enterprise accounts or perhaps to a governmental sector as a couple in there I am pretty sure already do business with the Federal government already.
Thanks for all the insights you all have provided on this board. You all have been very helpful in trying to get a handle on this thing called Trusted Computing and Wave Systems' huge part in it.
MIB
AI
