[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a hole in PGP

>How is it "unscholarly, unprofessional, needlessly personal, and just
>plain insulting" to question the idea that hundreds of thousands of
>people are trusting their freedom to software that is probably not
>secure? I think it is highly unprofessional to try to claim that PGP is
>secure and to try to bolster that position by claiming that some
>"Request for Comments" supports it when that same said RFC refutes it.
>As far as the potential that they are working with the NSA to subvert
>personal privacy, it is a potential, just as it is a potential that I am
>working with the NSA to undermine confidence in PGP.  The issue is and
>should be, why (specifically) do you believe that PGP is secure.

Here you go again. "Probably not secure". Earlier you make implications
of trap doors.  The only way for a trap door to be there, would be if
one of the authors put it there. Otherwise, you would be suggesting
that one dark night, on a new moon, the NSA snuck in to MIT, changed
the source code, inserted a back door, and snuck out without anybody
being the wiser.  Implying there is a trap door is much different than
implying there may be a flaw in the code itself that allows a security

I agree with Matt's assessment on your behavior Fred. Your statements
lead me (among others) to believe that you think that one or more
of the authors are not trustworthy and have tampered with the code
to insert trap doors. His remarks on your statements being near-defamatory
hit mighty close to home for this on-looker. I'm sure I'm not alone.