Re: Anonymous Nymserver: anon.nymserver.com

[TruthMonger <an7575@anon.nymserver.com>]

Bill Stewart wrote:

> 

> However, if you want to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,

> at least keep your facts straight; it does a much better job.


  The straight facts are that you can't trust your best
friend not to bop your old-lady, given ample opportunity,
and to put even more trust in a stranger is foolish.

> >  PGP 2.0-->2.3a were released outside of the U.S. and imported into

> >the country.

> >  The use of PGP=>2.5 suddenly became a 'non-issue' for use in the U.S.

> >because they use both the algorithm and sub-routines developed by the

> >NSA and the Military.

> 

> The new algorithm was the International Drug Entrapment Agency algorithm,

> introduced in PGP 2.0 to replace the previous non-NSA-crackable algorithm,

> Bass-O-Matic.  Pay no attention to the comments in the source about fnords,

> /* these aren't the subroutines you're looking fnord */ and follow the money.


> PGP 2.5 became a non-issue because RSAREF takes care of the patent problem -

> which is largely because the widespread use of PGP really did spread the

> RSA algorithm's popularity, and giving away free licenses was about the only

> way for RSA Inc. to regain any control over it at all.

  Are you saying that the patent on the RSA algorithm wasn't
enforceable?

>  If you want to do

> a better job of FUD, you could talk about the under-the-table relationship

> between MIT and RSA or the RSA and NSA (they're only different by one letter!)

> or notice that the CAPSTONE implementations of Clipper used algorithms

> patented by PKP...


  The relationship between MIT and the NSA and the Military
isn't very far under the table. 
  The spooks funded MIT's RSA development, and they are not
noted for funding projects for the good of the common man.
To suggest that they would fund a form of cryptography that
didn't have their own back-door for sounds implausible.

TruthMonger