NetSec Podcast: Why I Stopped Listening

Listening to podcasts have proven useful to me as a replacement for reading the latest magazines or keeping up with the news. Who has time to read? Listening is easier while I work out or drive.

However, my podcast list is trimmed tight. If something has an overall content percentage of good information of 70% or less - it gets cut.

Recently I have cut NetSecPodcast for many different reasons. First it does not contain 70% or more of good information. Mostly Martin spends his time opening a good topic, then agreeing with whatever Rich, his co-host, says. Martin has promised PCI perspectives that are not fully explored. Don't get me wrong: These guys are professionals with lots of good information contained somewhere in their brain, but the podcast does not seem to receive much of it. By way of example, their pet projects are even interesting, but all they do is mention them rather than explain anything step by step. What ever happened to the awesome antenna idea?

Rich has begun to annoy me as well. What sticks in my head is the first time he was on (or close to it) he talked about a lady who works at his local convenient internet cafe. Apparently she asked questions and offered to have him come over and help with her computer problems. Rich laughs it off because there is no way she could afford him in the first place. I'm certain Rich is very expensive due to his experience in the field. He is probably worth it. But I always help when I can. Even my old landlady still calls me. In fact I've done business with her several times since. You never know when those opportunities can pay off. This is a good principle in building your 'social' network that Rich doesn't seem to consider valuable. Manager Tools has great podcasts that show the benefits of being 'generous' with your knowledge, for example, "Building a Network".

While Rich did answer one of my personal questions I sometimes feel I am talking to myself while listening to him. I listen to podcasts for enrichment, not necessarily to confirm what I already know. When I am dealing with a subject I am not familiar with, I often use expressions like 'probably, maybe, most likely, most reasonable' especially when giving advise. I like to make it clear this is not my area and will use these 'uncertain' expressions. However, when discussing a project I should be familiar with I had better be using expressions more similar to 'because of X attack, Y server was compromised and here are the logs which prove that.' I am paid to know these things and would not use the 'uncertain' expressions.

It occurred to me the other day while listening to a podcast (that is still on my list so far) from SC Magazine that Rich, who was being interviewed about a news item, used these 'uncertain' expressions liberally. I am no expert on the topic that was dicussed and would probably have used many 'uncertain' expressions. I am uncertain whether Rich was paid for this interview, but he was brought on to be the expert. If that were the case, wouldn't he 'know?' I was unimpressed to say the least. When I give my analysis it is understood to be a best guess based on my experience or proof that I can show. Perhaps he was not prepared? These guys talk about stepping on and off planes like they go the gym. Understandably you cannot know everything and often there is little time for research. However, I would expect more fact checking on an SC Magazine gig. I am also at peace with asking for his opinion, but he stayed objective - not leaning in any particular direction as to what it could be. "All available data (which was not much) suggest... _blank_" would have been a better way to express the lack of details.

I am certain I will sign up again at some future time when perhaps I have caught up on other podcasts, but for now, they have fallen below the listening line.