The Problem With Blaze And Weinstein
I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm sure these people are very smart and have written lots of good code. I'm sure they're very nice and never kick their dogs. I'm just tired of people defending them as cypherpunks. They aren't cypherpunks. Neither has come out against GAK. They both carefully avoid commiting to any statement. They want us to think they're "one of us" but they don't want to be pinned down because they are double dipping on both sides of the fence. Blaze even does "research" on GAK. See his web page for evidence. Also the TIS report. The fact that he found a bug in clipper doesn't change this. It proves it. He works for the government, via att. Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by working at the company that the government has chosen to bring it to you now that att has failed. WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE PEOPLE? DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID TO LOOK CLOSELY? No, I did not post the RSA patch. I wouldn't touch any of that code with a 5 meter pole. To the guy who says write code: I've written plenty of code. Clue: your probably running some of it right now. I'm anonymous because I've seen FIRST HAND what the att lawyers do to people who tell the wrong kind of truth. Want me to be a 'nym. OK. s/ Bill Gates (he has good lawyers that can handle att and netscape)
OK, you're afraid of AT&T's lawyers. give me a break --who's chicken? they are not the government, they can not put you in jail and charges would never stick. both Blaze and Weinstein are bound by their employment contracts from discussing political hot-potatoes. Weinstein did state rather emphatically the opinions of the crew at Netscape did not conform to the apparently misguided statements of the dupe of government. blaze has sent plenty of code our way --even obtaining permission from at&t which is a real big brother. Have you been arrested and charged for crypto (non-export)? - I have. Have you been arrested and charged for technology export? - I have. Have you been raided more than once by the Feds? - I have. Have you been excluded from at&t machines except murray hill and other labs because system managers don't like programmers knowledgable in crypto and kernels ? - I have. Did I ever break into systems or alter data --no, that's not ethical. Could I? -yes, presumably some. "Membership" in Cypherpunks is not predicated on supporting _your_ political agenda or beliefs. In fact, too much bandwidth is expended on arguing about political policy. I agree with Perry that postings should be crypto design and implementation. I have suggested that even announcements of crypto political activities should be put up like John Young posts: one paragraph synopsis and a reference to get the whole thing, but no discussion --take it elsewhere. As for the attacks on Perry, they are inexcusable. You obviously have no idea what crypto Perry codes. I have not published crypto code for a long time. I am wrapping up, after a _long_ hiatus, one which will really take their socks off --with their shoes still on. I'd love to release it to public domain, but____ What am I going to do with it? dunno, probably put the tape on the shelf; I escaped the hard hand of justice, a poor man, the last time when I tried to enter the code in evidence. Now I am "20 years older and deeper in debt" [Tennessee Ernie style]; is it worth it? I've done my time, and code has a signature. I think I would prefer to enjoy my five children and a few grandchildren. But it has been a good exercise.... No, Mr. ECafe Anonymous _chicken_, you're the despicable party. Put your imprint on your attacks and accusations: the Constitution says you are entitled to _face_ your accusers. If you want to argue about constitutional or God given rights --do it in other forums. If you want to denigrate blaze, weinstein, perry, and maybe even tcmay, just drop yourself off the cpunk mailing list. meanwhile, get out of our collective faces and let us do a little code, I intend to finish my work, and then I can have a depression trying to decide whether I want to go the round, again. ATTILA ============================== On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, ECafe Anonymous Remailer wrote:
I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm sure these people are very smart and have written lots of good code. I'm sure they're very nice and never kick their dogs. I'm just tired of people defending them as cypherpunks.
They aren't cypherpunks.
Neither has come out against GAK. They both carefully avoid commiting to any statement. They want us to think they're "one of us" but they don't want to be pinned down because they are double dipping on both sides of the fence.
Blaze even does "research" on GAK. See his web page for evidence. Also the TIS report. The fact that he found a bug in clipper doesn't change this. It proves it. He works for the government, via att.
Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by working at the company that the government has chosen to bring it to you now that att has failed.
WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE PEOPLE? DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID TO LOOK CLOSELY?
No, I did not post the RSA patch. I wouldn't touch any of that code with a 5 meter pole.
To the guy who says write code: I've written plenty of code. Clue: your probably running some of it right now.
I'm anonymous because I've seen FIRST HAND what the att lawyers do to people who tell the wrong kind of truth.
Want me to be a 'nym. OK.
s/ Bill Gates (he has good lawyers that can handle att and netscape)
ECafe Anonymous Remailer writes:
I'm not trying to start a flame war.
Really?
They aren't cypherpunks.
Neither has come out against GAK.
You obviously have never spoken to Matt.
Blaze even does "research" on GAK.
No, he does research on private escrow. Thats not the same thing as GAK. Private escrow is sensible -- you don't want just one person with the keys to, say, the personel records. What happens if they get hit by a car?
DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID TO LOOK CLOSELY?
Actually, Matt has a Ph.D. from Princeton.
WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE PEOPLE?
Maybe I defend Matt because I think I know him pretty well -- we met when he showed up at the Columbia U. computer science department in the mid 1980s, and among other things we shared an office at Bellcore for a year or two, and he's about as cryptography and privacy friendly a person as you can find. Maybe I defend him because you are likely an idiot who's never so much as chatted with him. Maybe I'm bored. Who knows. Perry
Anonymous "Bill Gates" writes:
I'm not trying to start a flame war.
Bullshit. [inconsequential prattle elided] This thread is completely off-topic. Besides, we've gone through all this on the list before. Let's not continue it. We all have more productive things to do with our time. -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
I think this conversation is getting silly even by net.standards. On the one hand we have the screaming libertarians with a bunch of wedged political notions about property. On the other we have what appear to be arch anti-capitalists claiming that nobody who earns a living out of crypto can be a cypherpunk. What is really strange is that these appear to be the _same_ people. Now I'm not one for supporting corporativism but consider this, most if not all of the technical contributors to this list who can earn money from their crypto knowledge do so. Matt and Jeff are not alone in being paid for their abilities. Another thing is that many of us are also into government contract work up to their necks. The Web consortium is funded partly through an ARPA grant. MIT is practically floating on government subsidies. Yes this is where your tax dollars go, learn to love it or die bitching. The point is that the tourist element who gripe on about nothing other than their political views and never contribute any technical input are not the people that make the list work. People like Matt and Jeff are the people who make the list worthwhile. Phill
hallam@w3.org writes:
On the one hand we have the screaming libertarians with a bunch of wedged political notions about property. On the other we have what appear to be arch anti-capitalists claiming that nobody who earns a living out of crypto can be a cypherpunk. What is really strange is that these appear to be the _same_ people.
No, Phil. We have just one person who's an annoying nutcase who's been bothering us, and lord knows what he really thinks. .pm
ECafe Anonymous Remailer wrote:
I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm sure these people are very smart and have written lots of good code. I'm sure they're very nice and never kick their dogs. I'm just tired of people defending them as cypherpunks.
They aren't cypherpunks.
Neither has come out against GAK. They both carefully avoid commiting to any statement. They want us to think they're "one of us" but they don't want to be pinned down because they are double dipping on both sides of the fence.
Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by working at the company that the government has chosen to bring it to you now that att has failed.
I am against GAK. I have been contributing to EFF for years. I have written and faxed my representatives in congress stating my position against both GAK and government censorship of the net. The reason I'm working on security code at netscape is that I think it may be the only way to foil the government's plans to remove all privacy from its citizens is mass market strong encryption software. Why do you believe that Netscape has been chosen by the government to bring GAK to the masses? Because of the uninformed and misguided comments of Jim Clark? Jim has been educated and the company has taken a firm position against government control of crypto. When you go to the store today and buy netscape you get strong encryption out of the box, without any GAK. --Jeff -- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.
participants (6)
-
attila -
cpunk＠remail.ecafe.org -
futplex＠pseudonym.com -
hallam＠w3.org -
Jeff Weinstein -
Perry E. Metzger