Here's a copy of the forged note, plus my response. Regards, Paul Kocher kocherp@leland.stanford.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article 499 in alt.privacy.clipper: Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!headwall.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!c s.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper Subject: Public Apology Date: 27 May 1993 01:58:35 -0500 Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Lines: 36 Sender: daemon@cs.utexas.edu Message-ID: <9305270624.AA00395@silverton.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu In article <9305270624.AA00395@silverton.berkeley.edu> you write:

Dear Friends,

Many of you have come to know me through my public analysis of encryption technology and the law as I understand it. I have taken the past few days to reflect on my positions. I now realize that I myself have been misled and in turn may have been misleeding some of you. I am very impressed with the quality and clarity of thought that many of you on the system have displayed in your numerous and extensive replies to my ruminations. Unfortunately, I have also been impressed with the misleading and self-serving views presented by my former friend Jim Bidzos, and by my colleagues in the United States Government. Recently, some have called me a dupe, and, understandably, I have reacted strongly. Only now do I realize how right they have been.

Let me now try to explain my current thinking: Democracy, as defined by our founding fathers, and the Greek philosophers before them, has as its cornerstone free and unfettered public discourse. In our modern world, privacy and the ability to speak without fear of disclosure or reprisal, is a prerequisite for all but the most perfunctory such discourse. If there is one thing I should have learned in my journeys to our spanish- and portuguese-speaking neighbors to the south, it is that the government can never be relied upon as the guarantor of privacy. Contrariwise, it is all too often positioned as the infractor. We should not, nay, we must not, allow the trivia of narrow-minded export restrictions and the tyranny of questionable patents to stand in the way of our personal liberties.

I therefore undertake to present my public apologies to such enlightened and forward-thinking members of our community as Daniel Bernstein, Vesselin Bontchev, Peter Honeyman, Perry Metzger, and especially Phil Zimmermann. I can only hope they will find the generosity to judge me not on my past, but on my present and future actions.

-- David Sternlight Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of our information, errors and omissions excepted.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My article to sci.crypt and alt.privacy.clipper follows Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,sci.crypt Subject: Re: Public Apology [ARTICLE IS A FORGERY] Summary: Expires: References: <9305270624.AA00395@silverton.berkeley.edu> Sender: Followup-To: alt.privacy.clipper Distribution: Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Keywords: In article <9305270624.AA00395@silverton.berkeley.edu> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

Only now do I realize how right they have been.

I'm quite certain this post is a forgery. Plenty of things seem wrong here. For example, David doesn't usually post through cs.utexas.edu (which is reportedly is one of the least difficult sites to use for forging news articles). Other things are also wrong with the header... FLAME MODE: In my opinion, posting this represents a disgusting violation of net ethics (and the law). It is frightening that someone could be so immature as to attempt to damage David's relationships with Jim Bidzos and others. Hopefully someone can kill the article before it propigates too far... Regards, Paul Kocher kocherp@leland.stanford.edu [I'm sending this to sci.crypt in addition to alt.privacy.clipper, where a supposed "Public Apology" from David Sternlight was posted.] ------- End of Forwarded Message