One of the many salutory if unsavory aspects of cypherpunks is that a fresh proposal is more likely to be disagreed with than supported, rabid-dog disagreement cloaking theft and plagiarism. Rotters will then go off to get something done with stolen material, most will remain to shrewly pretend to demolish whatever "cluelessness" shows up, to asymmetrically burgle and secretize openness loot like official spies. Lacking cluelessness to taunt into full disclosure the bandits will brag of prowess, refer auto-didactly to misunderstood, unread sources (some fictional hidden by errant URLs), throw out poisoned baited code, cackle at the writhing suckers who bite the freebie and foolishly insert as covert backdoor, but never admit having been hooked repeatedly, instead pay ahead the pain of gullibility, lesson learned from distinguished computer professors and OS-backdoored Middle East negotiators. Does this remind of Assange among several ignotables who went off-list to reshape the world as "life-changing" endeavor? And who may or may not be among current hyenas here lying in wait for fresh carrion like Bell, CJ, Manning, Swartz, BBrown, Anonymous, Lulzsec, Sabu, Appelbaum, Gonggrijp, Jonsdottir, Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, the list of vanity-incomsec-diseased ever lengthens. The dozen or so best and brightest will fail at their incomsec ventures, hoodwinked by better and brighter vultures preying on red meat wizards incompetent at asymmetrical financial math with dreams of lucrative public interest benefits fronted by sterling reputations. RSA, PGP, NSA venture-backdooring susceptible.