[Owasp-leaders] Thomas Ryan - OWASP - OccupyWallStreet - Gawker

Christian Heinrich christian.heinrich at owasp.org
Mon Oct 17 19:29:45 EDT 2011


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> So this is an interesting (and completely irrelevant to OWASP)
> discussion on the state of the online press that while I find
> interesting doesn't change the central point here.  The point is that
> Gawker has incorrectly "printed" that Mr Ryan is a OWASP board member.

To quote https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/2011-October/006308.html

You haven't considered that Gawker issuing a clarification as "Tom
Ryan is a former Board Member of the OWASP NYC/NJ Chapter" would make
this worst for OWASP by naming the OWASP NYC/NJ Chapter?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
>  Wither you agree with his actions, who said what first and when, is
> completely irrelevant.

So with that understanding what "benefit" is their to OWASP in making
a public comment which will be deliberately misinterpreted by them as
"disowning" Tom (Ryan) therefore breathing new life into the story?

I have already highlighted that this clarification will result in
Gawker attending an OWASP NYC/NJ Chapter Meeting within

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Mark Bristow <mark.bristow at owasp.org> wrote:
> As an organization we have a responsibility to correct factual errors
> that are reported about OWASP.  Mr. Ryan is not a board member, nor is
> he a paid member of OWASP although he has made a number of
> contributions to OWASP over the years and is a member of this
> community.  I'm of the opinion that the board should reach out to
> Gawker to ask that a correction be made.

A PR agent would advise you to consider the fact that Joe Public
hasn't focused on OWASP yet and therefore have sidestepped any damage
and therefore their advice would be not to make a comment and let it

I would suggest that you have someone who doesn't know about OWASP
read the article and then sometime later ask them what the focus of
the article was and what they know about OWASP, you will find their
response will be "what's OWASP" because they won't recall it from
their reading of the article.

Tom Ryan as already made you aware that what was a comment made about
anonymous, etc has been deliberately manipulated by Gawker as a direct
attack on the people's freedom to protest, etc.

Expect also that Gawker to consider that OWASP are quoted as stating
that Gawker is "a rumor mill website •by design•" as quoted by our
press committee
and will therefore no doubt provide OWASP will a "fair and balanced"
retraction (note sarcasm).

I would advise OWASP not to make a comment or approach the press/media
on this matter as there is no "benefit" to OWASP relations to the
public and it will simply resulted in unwelcome, unwanted and damaging
attention to OWASP from both the press and public.

Christian Heinrich

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list