CHALLENGE response (fwd)

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

The whole point of the CHALLENGE response went straight over his head,
didn't it?  It's almost as though there are two mailing lists here: the
one for dolts, where Jim Choate gets into his idiotic little arguments
with his fellow fools, yammering back and forth on totally off-topic
matters, and the one for people interested in cryptography and its
implications.

We have here the first known case where a key was constructed ex post
facto to validate a signed message, in response to Adam Back's challenge.
No longer can you assume that just because you posted a signed message
on a certain date, and you hold the public key which signed that message,
that you can later prove authorship.  It challenges some of the implicit
assumptions which have been made in using public key cryptography.

And all Jim Choate can do is take issue with a snippet of Toto's ravings
which were included purely to illustrate the signature validity.  He is
completely unaware of what is really happening.

Jim Choate writes:

> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:01:07 +0200
> > From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> > Subject: CHALLENGE response
> 
> > "Contrary to one famous philosopher,
> > you're saying the medium is not the
> > message," Judge Thomas Nelson said,
> > alluding to the media theorist Marshall
> > McLuhan. 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/120997encrypt-bernstein.html
> > 
> >   Bullshit!
> >   The bits and bytes of email encryption are a clear message
> > that I wish to exercise my right to speak freely, without those
> > who wish to do me harm invading my privacy.
> 
> If you're going to take that tack then you need to invoke freedom of the
> press and not freedom of speech.