[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proper context?
On Sat, 11 Sep 93 14:15:46 -0700,
<uunet!soda.berkeley.edu!nobody> wrote -
> In fact, there is at least one NSA agent on this list. Whether
> he/she is on our side or not, who knows? This message, a defense of
> the NSA, was posted here not long ago. I don't know if anyone else
> noticed this at the time, but take a look:
>
> *From: IN%"[email protected]" 28-AUG-1993 06:02:47.29
> *To: IN%"[email protected]"
> *CC:
> *Subj: NSA & the Crypto-Zionist Myth of "Public Key"!
> *>I'm rather surprised that the most significant piece of evidence
> *>in favor of the "NSA has cracked PGP" theory is that no one's put
> *>a bullet through Phil Zimmerman's head.
> *
> *Excuse me, but I'm getting tired of this silly paranoia. NSA
> *is not Evil Incarnate Central, and we are not fighting a Valiant War
> ==
>
> We? WE! Do you suppose that was a Freudian slip, or did he mean to
> say it like that? Whoever he is, he works for the NSA. Did anyone else
> notice this at the time?
I went back through my archives and read this message; actually the
context in which it was written could be construed that "we"
is either party (NSA or Cypherpunks).
After re- reading the remainder of his (or her) post, I think he's
right for the most part. Messages containing hype (like yours, that
I told myself I wasn't going to respond to) consist of much more
paranoia than substance.
Paul Ferguson | privacy \'pri-va-see\ n, pl, -cies;
Mindbank Consulting Group | 1: the quality or state of being apart
Fairfax, Virginia USA | from others 2: secrecy
[email protected] |
[email protected] | Privacy -- Use it or lose it.