Q.E.D |= Montgolfiering + Inbongis + Fermented Pear Juice

[wichita at cyberstation.net]

         Fermented Pear Juice == Supercilious Pap

         There they go again, the imperium, or so they think, of
         cryptographic shamans are trying to bamboozle list readers
         into believing their warped cryptographic gimcrackery. They
         do not need Zadoc to anoint themselves the Solomons of the
         cryptographic world. They think that they are perfectly
         capable of doing it to themselves. Have they ever
         cracked a single meaningful cryptographic system?  Have they ever
         implemented a significant cryptographic system?

         Of course, I am not speaking of Dr. Ron Rivest and other
         rightfully honored members, but rather of that ragtag group
         of cryptographic medicine men that think they have all the
         answers to all the questions, that is, the small cypherlunks
         subset of cypherpunks/coderpunks.  Despite their trifling
         anomalous performances, they have Napoleonically crowned
         themselves as the aristocracy of cryptography.  They are not
         "au fait" august, aureate practitioners, rather "au fond",
         they are narcistic harlequins, "fons et origino" of their own
         and claque homologated mirages of autistic cryptographic
         fantasies.

         Remember, how that self appointed College of Cryptographic
         Cardinals cannonaded me, and you, with a fusillade of self
         serving avowals such as, "we do not do it for money, we do it
         for the public good", "it is our duty to expose snake oil
         salesmen", "I feel a snake oil attack coming on", "it is a
         public service", "we owe it to the public, to protect them
         against charlatans," and on and on "ad nauseam," with their
         silly putty rodomontades.  Now that their pusillanimity has
         been exposed for all to see clearly, they have apparently
         adopted the opportune, timorous motto of "sauve qui puet."

         They have proved themselves to be an alliance of fainaiguers
         that change their tunes when called to task. How many of them
         want to do it for the public good, now ? How many want to
         expose the snake oil salesman, now? How many of them want to
         protect the public, now? Not one. Show me, us,  one of them
         that is not intellectually tremulous. They leaped into the
         contest when they sensed blood, but now they realize that it
         is their blood to be spilled, they shirk from their
         intellectual responsibilities. All of the Sir Galihads and
         Sir Lancelots of yesterday, have proved themselves to be
         Sir Coward Chickens now, as everyone can plainly discern.
         Most of them have chosen the exeunt course and are now hiding
         their heads in the sand, hoping that no one will take note of
         them.

         Where are all those chivalrous cryptographic knights now? I
         am sure that if asked, most would reply to the effect that
         they are "otherwise engaged," which parses to "nonpossumus,"
         and only the most naive could fail to recognize that. What
         has become of their chivalry?  Quite simply, the impersonate
         knights have become loathly benighted.

         The cypherlunks, riffraff, were quick to engage in jousting
         over OTP logomachy because they thought that all they had to
         do was beat their fingers on the keyboard and cite Shannon.
         The neologizing of the term "Software OTP," drove them into
         an uncontrolled frenzy of attacks. Alas, to do so, did not
         tax their notional mental facilities.

         On the other hand, when challenged to demonstrate their
         cryptanalytical skills, the cypherlunks became panic stricken
         and in mass hysteria took flight in frightened awe of the IPG
         algorithm.  Their knightly bravado and braggadocio were
         hastily jettisoned in their wild flight away and superseded
         by their otiose nihility.

         That flock of cryptographic turkeys, a.k.a. cypherlunks,  flew 
         off to their clangorous roosts. There, though the more
         intelligent became quiescent as circumstances dictated, the
         court jesters started wildly flapping their wings and
         gobbling out their gobbledygook in order to becloud and
         confuse people about the proffer of the heretic.  Those
         clowns were, and are, trying to create the illusion that
         their incondite cryptographic skills are irrefutable because
         they say it is so, and that makes it so.

         I think that those cypherlunk fabulists should adopt the
         apropos motto, "Talk very loudly and carry a tiny turkey
         feather duster." Their quixotic sallies into cryptanalytics
         are quintessential asininities.  They are not subduing great
         crypto dragons, or giants, or even midgets, not even
         windmills; they, even more than Quixote, are merely
         fantasizing their efficaciousness.  Their only significant
         cryptographic artifices are locked forever within the
         confines of their convoluted individual and collective minds.

         The cypherlunk's nympholeptic calliope of reciprocal
         "inbongis" is indicative proof of their total capitulation in
         the face of the impregnable IPG algorithm.  Their clannish
         drum beating, high fiving, and back slapping of each other is
         reactionary declamatory histrionics. What a tragic waste.

         If there was only some way to channel and divert that energy
         atrophy into productive causes. For example, illimitable
         outrage against the dissonant alliance of Freeh and Saddam
         Hussein in trying to prevent their citizenry from having
         unbreakable encryption technologies. Gore and Rashanjanti are
         also advocating similar polices with respect to encryption  
         restrictions.

         We must recognize that Gore, Reno, Freeh, Exon, and others 
         similarly situated believe they are doing what is right. The
         fact though is, that by so doing they are becoming welcome allies
         of Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Castro and other
         human rights oppressors. That is a red flag if there was ever
         one. It raises the irreconcilable question of how can
         both groups in such an unseemly alliance be right.

         Obviously they cannot. Accordingly, that existential 
         incongruence succinctly points out the dichotomous character of
         the question of whether or not unbreakable encryption
         technologies should be made openly available to everyone.

         In reality, the question though is not even close.  While
         granted that there may be some criminals and terrorists who
         will pervert the use of encrypted communications, the number
         is extremely small because most such malefactors are far too
         ignorant and in too much of a hurry. If we spent a fraction of
         the saved money on openly bribing accomplices,  far better
         emanations would be forthcoming. Furthermore, even if
         unbreakable encryption systems were allowed, law
         enforcement would still have an immense arsenal, existing and
         developing,  of far more efficacious technological weapons
         available to them. 
         
         Cryptanalytics has become the tiny tail that continues to wag the
         immense dog of intelligence gathering. A few powerful oligarchs
         are screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling," in order
         to protect their "Hillistic" empires. Wake up, the sky is not
         falling, and it is not going to fall anytime soon. Oh, those
         all powerful empire builders think they are doing what is proper
         and prudent for our country and its people, but they are
         absolutely wrong.      

         The good far outweighs the bad on the balance scales. We
         desperately need unbreakable encryption technologies to aid and
         abet freedom fighters against tyranny around the world, and that
         is the reason that Hussein, Castro, Rashanjanti, and others of
         that persuasion are opposed to unbreakable encryption systems.
         We also need it in order to make it possible for individuals to 
         protect their privacy in the onrushing information age. We also
         need it to so that businesses can protect their proprietary and 
         other vital interests when essentially everything goes online.
         Unbreakable encryption will also insure for all people that
         governments do not wantonly intrude into their lives.

         To paraphrase FDR, "the only thing that we have to fear about
         unbreakable encryption systems, is the misplaced fear that it 
         will do more harm than good." If the Internet and the Information
         Age are to achieve their potential to build us a better world,
         then unbreakable encryption technologies must be one of the
         irreplaceable cornerstones on which such a future can be
         built.

         We, who favor the advancement of the view that I am advocating, 
         will not win by adhering to reactionary defensive tactics. We
         must go on the offensive. We need to bombard our Representatives
         and Senators with e-mail questioning why Castro, Freeh, Gore,
         Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Reno, Sung, Jr. and others that
         disagree about almost everything else are allies with respect to
         denying the public the use of unbreakable encryption technologies.
         Also, ask them,  how are we ever going to be able to
         address the privacy issues in the information age without
         such encryption systems.  Additionally, tell them about how we
         are handing over a multi-billion dollar market to foreign
         competitors because of the ITAR export ban, billions of  dollars
         a year now and growing. 

         We can win this affray because we are obviously in the right
         but we must become much more proactive by making everyone aware 
         of all of the good things that will accrue  to our human
         species by doing what we are advocating, That is the only real
         way to effectively combat those who mistakenly are taking the
         myopic view that we should not do it because it will 
         help the criminals and terrorists. Guns and explosives
         help maleficence elements too, but we do not outlaw them because
         they serve other very useful purposes, and the same thing is
         obviously true with with respect to unbreakable encryption
         technologies.

         Back to the IPG system, we believe that you would like to
         know that commencing this date, IPG is advertising as
         follows:

         "In addition to posting the algorithm(s) at our web site:

                       http://www.netprivacy.com

         IPG has also posted the algorithm(s) to a number of other
         sites, including Universities in the United States and
         Canada, as well as the famed Cypherpunks and Coderpunks
         lists. Since the IPG algorithm is impregnable, obviously no
         individual, or collection of individuals, from said
         Universities, the Cypherpunks, or the Coderpunks has been
         able to crack the system. Of course, this inability to do the
         impossible applies not only to the present but for all time,
         for all eternity."

         Of course what we are saying is obviously true, and we thought
         you might want to know.


Thanks so very much,

Don Wood