-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/03/2016 03:57 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
This is the **cypherpunks** mail list. Isn't the point of of being a punk to *question* authority, and the cypherpunk to question the narrative of weak authentication systems?
It seems important not to confuse the man Ian with a device and cryptographic key that was once known to be in posession of the man, who is now deceased.
Now if there is some reliable human witness that Ian actually keyed that text into a device in his physical posession then I think we'd all like to hear about it.
The only digital witness to the alleged tweets is not a particularly credible one, in my opinion.
"Everybody lies." - Greg House First and foremost we lie to ourselves, continuously, as our central nervous systems build models of the world based on incomplete data and unexamined assumptions. We usually believe the result of this process is the "real world," because it is the only world we can experience. We have to believe, because the processing overhead of questioning and testing everything, all the time, would be crippling - and the results would be inconclusive. But there is a limit to the advantage of taking our illusory impressions of the real world at face value, and sometimes it does pay to consciously examine how confident we are of a source of information, why we have that confidence, and how these factors should affect own conclusions about that information. What evidence do we really have, where did it come from and how can it be tested? When our available information is second hand, ambiguous and/or self contradictory, and especially when it originates in a context of human conflict, there may be no rational basis for confident conclusions about what really happened: Just a cluster of possible interpretations which can be assigned higher or lower probability on a basis of educated guesswork about the quality of the sources and how the information itself fits - or does not fit - - into what we already 'know' about its native context. People who do this for a living are called intelligence analysts, and their training includes all of the above. When the going gets spooky, the spooks his the books. Highly recommended for anyone who takes an interest in news and current events: http://cryptome.org/2013/01/aaron-swartz/Psychology-of-Intelligence- Analysis.pdf Subjective human experience is the instrument that detects and represents "reality," so it pays to have a handle on how that system works. I doubt that the CIA requires trainees to read and study this textbook, but it wouldn't hurt if they did: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/04%20Prometheus%20Rising .pdf :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWiaE4AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LSPoP/1j1LN8HOoMsxWeBMjzjpz7a zY/17dX4F0mYKSgUUs81b2wDCnezd0xfopNDOVqcttiDJN2otXOqGjAeUcBkl6Gt /9dkDqP0cB0LR6NTKUHtYLHK3aoklD3IbsNTc5HCGihefSCPykVhxcFTt1fv/XRB b0AD++ZgjBHc8EsZfq6C04NWcGG8CXugBQ3moE/4y/hRMM5uax2FXSmalFU+LMcC GfjDICu48AVAWnQqTst4onQmFLGEHsC9tsxn5qB7Jj0IkPg28at4lELdIwDxMiIq nMM8vrZEAr95seYp4+4h2fMX4gZBrdD5w4/2+16a6yuB0yZIS6oPZgX5Kf8dZ9g5 yz5X7KhL1BHQrS7mgktJfOUBbGbjfIG8Dx60nIMmVn55qkErUlS9jYkPZ6n3r3Si ypUcxo3VQZyCAm859sorwyej9CAgujBFGgkb/8P7Y0KVXQbZFA8wqzH8AchJ3YEu zZrJ1AO0gFovpL448M+vxeXXOqUpOOTJjvde9QmqiyDhisT8iO1R4yaOnaGrQuYI +WHXWgJwZkOzGUwzIw3UitwQzT8a/BbSifG17muYcSSp2KQ8Pdt70ng4JpVzETvN +i4mzzOobR1+sIwvdM1pkzYDNSiDYfnLaYYdx++DnJ3euCHQAixipoe5MtWm+mrz +hM+bJ4RVSHEKMC6oRnn =adrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----