Re: Netscape security

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

Responding to msg by altitude@cic.net (Alex Tang) on Fri, 18 
Aug  2:52 PM


>It seems that one of the problems with Damien's 
>cracking job was that it  was "not sanctioned".  Look 
>at the WSJ article, they didn't mention his  
>name...they just called him "a hacker".  It shows how 
>public opinion still  sees groups like the cypherpunks 
>as just that, a bunch of punks. 
>
>With some "respected" business on our side, it may make 
>a much bigger  impact (better publicity, better 
>leverage, etc.).


   While the WSJ story mentioned no names, other than the
   esteemed CypherName and our cypheragent who lured the
   reporter, later stories have given individual credit and
   amplified the "mainstream" impact of the cabalistic hacker
   culture crack.

   This segue may be due to the PR-mad corporations and the
   LEA's seeking to profit by the drama given to outsiders to
   get their safety-products approved, to pose themselves as
   being more devoted to the public weal than the devil-
   punks (liars or inadverdent truthsayers?).

   Or, it may just be a more interesting (lucrative) to pump
   the outsider, hacker aspect. Reporting on hackerdom has
   been oft used to boost a shrewd wannabe-an-insider's rep in
   the mainstream -- no names now, you know who they are, most
   are doing quite well, Zarathrustra bless their complicit
   Guccioni-success.

   So, hackers, punks, cypherpunks, up all night, right, watch
   them come calling for an interview when you misbehave in
   outrageous and wondrous and techno-magical ways. Gotta get
   lurid stories to allure the customer/advertiser/voter.

   Damien, Hal and the SSL-non-anonymous hackers, watch your
   backs, think of Kevin and his oh-so-admiring, trust-me
   provocateurs.

   Just my Time-averse sensor-jigger, sensing threat models.