Apparently one can spell "Snake Oil" in Capital Letters, too (Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, August 15, 2004)

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 11:26 PM -0500 8/14/04, Bruce Schneier wrote:
>From: "Ken Lavender" <ICS_Atlanta at Charter.Net>
>Subject: ICS Atlanta
>
>I am APPAULED at your "comments" that you had made on your website:
>
>	<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0407.html#9>
>
>You have statements are nothing but slander & defamation.  They shall
>be dealt with accordingly.
>
>Lie #1:  "How do they demonstrate Tree's security?  'Over 100
>professionals in mathematics & in computer science at Massachusetts
>Institute of Technology & at Georgia Tech, had sample encoded messages
>submitted to them. Not a single person could break this code!'"  That
>is not the ONLY way we prove it.  We have examples & offer to allow
>people to submit their OWN messages to have encoded to SEE how good the
>code is.  So there are THREE methods, NOT just ONE as you IMPLY.
>
>Lie #2:  "These guys sent unsolicited e-mails..."  HOW do you KNOW that
>this was the case?  Have any PROOF of such?  NO!
>
>Lie #3:  "And if all that isn't enough to make you run screaming from
>these guys, their website proudly proclaims: 'Tree Encoded Files Can Be
>"Zipped."'"  Because they can be "zipped" does NOT mean that it is "bad
>encoding."  The "code talkers" of ww2 used LANGUAGE to "code" the
>messages, and THOSE COULD BE "ZIPPED"!!!  And that code was NEVER BROKEN!!!
>
>Lie #4:  "That's right; their encryption is so lousy that the
>ciphertext doesn't even look random."  AGAIN, HOW would you
>KNOW???  Did you break it?  NO!  And what is "random"???
>
>	random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method
>
>"So lousy"?  HOW WOULD YOU KNOW???  You would have to KNOW how we
>encode BEFORE you can make such a statement, & YOU DO NOT KNOW
>HOW!!!  If it is SO LOUSY, how come NOBODY HAS BROKEN IT YET???  And we
>have people ALL THE TIME trying to, with ZERO SUCCESS.
>
>I do not like you slandering something that you do not
>understand.  ATALL!!!
>
>The ONLY question you asked was "how long is the key" AND THAT WAS
>IT!  HOW long was the key that the 'code talkers' used? ZERO!!! JUST AS
>OUR IS.  The encoding routine was created, tested, & verified on PAPER
>& PENCIL WITHOUT COMPUTERS!  A child could encode data using our
>routine.  The computer is merely used to "speed-up" the process, NOT TO
>CREATE IT.  Our routine is based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH.  So all of you
>"comments" are just false, misleading & just plain ole lies!  SHOW &
>PROVE that it is NOT random.  What is the PATTERN THEN???
>
>I am DEMANDING A FULL RETRACTION OF YOUR COMMENTS & A FULL, COMPLETE
>APOLOGY TO THESE AND ALL STATEMENTS.
>
>I am a person who tries to work with people as a man w/o having to
>"drag" others into the mess.  Others?  THE COURTS.  You have violated
>Calf law by your statements.
>
>[Text of California Civil Code Section 46 deleted.]
>
>Your LIES have damaged my respect in my job & has damaged any sales of
>this routine.  You have ZERO proof of your "comments," ANY OF
>THEM!!!  I beseech of you, do the RIGHT THING and comply.  I DO NOT
>wish to escalate this matter any higher.  And remember this, Tree is
>based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>[Phone number deleted out of mercy.]

-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'