n3td3v humiliation during SANS podcast deemed unprofessional conduct

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Subject: n3td3v humiliation during SANS podcast deemed unprofessional
conduct
To: handlers@sans.org


we have intelligence to suggest, your organisation laughed and mocked
"n3td3v" during the SANS state of the internet podcast 2009; we would
like to suggest refraining from further public humiliation via your
SANS ISC and other associated affiliated domains.

your organisation is already in trouble after one of your handlers
went rogue and deployed a private email sent to your contact channel
and was distributed throughout the ##security IRC channel of the
Freeenode server network.

we see you as unprofessional in respect of what your podcast was
broadcasting on SANS state of the internet podcast 2009, in a grudge
that was evidently fueled from n3td3v covert action that distributed
the information that a n3td3v correspondence email to the SANS ISC
handlers had reached the public domain through an internet relay chat
communication session in which details of the content of email was
shared, in what can only be described as, a privacy breach occuring
for the sake of winning a 'pissing match' with other subscribers of
Freenode.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: andrew.wallace <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Subject: side note
To: handlers@sans.org


does joel esler still think emails sent to handlers at sans org are
emails personally addressed to him so should be distributed throughout
IRC, and when the person complains, you should have public humiliation
of that person via a SANS podcast? just asking what your privacy
policy *actually* is and if public humiliation of anyone who
highlights any privacy breaches is within the rules of the SANS
institute?