Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?

[Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Martin Minow claiming to be Martin Minow wrote:
>Anonymous, claiming to be Monty Cantsin, writes about PGP 5.5:

I beg your pardon!

>>Decrypting files and decrypting messages are not the same problem.
>>The PGP product has SMTP support - it is explicitly designed to
>>weaken transmitted messages.  Just like Clipper.
>
>No, it isn't "just like Clipper." Messages encrypted with PGP 5.5
>can be decrypted or verified by PGP 5.0 or other implementations that
>can decode the PGP message and encryption format. Also, PGP 5.0 or other
>complient implementations can send encrypted and signed messages to
>PGP 5.5 users.

Next you'll be telling us that PGP doesn't really use Skipjack.  ;-)

_Of course_ it isn't Clipper.  But, it's like Clipper in the most
important way: it is surveillance friendly.

The use of Clipper was not compelled.  We hated it because if it were
used to any degree at all, its use would become mandatory.

PGP Inc.'s Big Brother line of products play the same role Clipper
did, only they are wrapped up in PGP Inc.'s "Good Guy" image.  PGP
Inc. may succeed where William Clinton and The Spooks failed.

Were we to behave consistently, we would treat the company with the
same level of trust and respect the present administration receives.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBND1+KpaWtjSmRH/5AQFTTwf7B6QO8I0yqQobsoUlW5AZxxXH4Tya/pwd
3hAZs//Y1gKyVEX6nW9dE3sDVAW8GBK489S4TMWemdbtfgeq7EaiV0D5QcLcAXst
Iqz/WIKxpXjJ5+DjPV2CP6v6zd2XGIa7y3G0BKXglLZh5X7EkiRbJ6c8aixgAk6n
2nFKDqyp53mpmqTPm7xQbpYni5CtQ8Ljq/m+m4LP1hN05OYR8ZWJRz7hqrWvU+5A
zw0xagCgPOKZZMZNS7sW+xGwVezsLis9KMZvsB1Paq4s8+geNlFr73vDwlM9SROI
KxCfJnpr/sLG3x3Mtbv8Y0vhErTsZ2Pu4HnazVdjelh+r6O67v3TQQ==
=JUfQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----