Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)

[Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>]

I did not agree to be a judge.  If I seem to be skating, skidding, or
otherwise not in contempt of the snake oil you're selling, I
apologize.  I see your system as smoke and mirrors, and will continue
to do so until respected cryptographers tell me its not.  If you'd
like me to sit down and read the stuff you're spewing, I'd be happy
to.  For a fee.  Failing that, I'll maintain my opinion with no
further investigation.  Close minded?  I don't investigate
UFO sightings.

	To reiterate, I don't care about your system until
cryptographers I respect tell me its worth looking at, or
cryptographically interesting.  (I'll allow any two cryptographers
with two or more publications in the proceedings of an IACR sponsored
conference as respectable.)

Adam

| I do not recall that I said that we would retain you - The question was 
| asked about unbiased judges - we simply stated that we would agree to 
| you, Derek, and Immcarth as Judges - As I recall, it was Derek who asked 
| for the Algorithms employed for investigation by the Cypherpunks, as he 
| referred to them as a loose knit organization - but if you prefer, we 
| will call them a mailing list - running fakers like us out of business 
| should be its own reward 
| 
| Please do as you choose - you too  seem to be skating - please put up or 
| shutup - I do not mean to be rude, and apolgise, but everytime we agree 
| to something, everyone wants more - 

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume