From: ferguson@fiber.sprintlink.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 18:38:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Proper context?
Message-ID: <9309120229.AA10732@fiber.sprintlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 11 Sep 93 14:15:46 -0700,
 <uunet!soda.berkeley.edu!nobody> wrote -
 
> In fact, there is at least one NSA agent on this list. Whether
> he/she is on our side or not, who knows? This message, a defense of
> the NSA, was posted here not long ago. I don't know if anyone else
> noticed this at the time, but take a look:
>
> *From:   IN%"remail@tamsun.tamu.edu" 28-AUG-1993 06:02:47.29
> *To:     IN%"cypherpunks@toad.com"
> *CC:
> *Subj:   NSA & the Crypto-Zionist Myth of "Public Key"!
 
> *>I'm rather surprised that the most significant piece of evidence
> *>in favor of the "NSA has cracked PGP" theory is that no one's put
> *>a bullet through Phil Zimmerman's head.
> *
> *Excuse me, but I'm getting tired of this silly paranoia.  NSA
> *is not Evil Incarnate Central, and we are not fighting a Valiant War
>                                     ==
>
> We? WE! Do you suppose that was a Freudian slip, or did he mean to
> say it like that? Whoever he is, he works for the NSA. Did anyone else
> notice this at the time?
 
 I went back through my archives and read this message; actually the
 context in which it was written could be construed that "we"
 is either party (NSA or Cypherpunks).
 
 After re- reading the remainder of his (or her) post, I think he's
 right for the most part. Messages containing hype (like yours, that
 I told myself I wasn't going to respond to) consist of much more
 paranoia than substance. 
 
Paul Ferguson               |   privacy \'pri-va-see\ n, pl, -cies;
Mindbank Consulting Group   |   1: the quality or state of being apart
Fairfax, Virginia USA       |   from others  2: secrecy
fergp@sytex.com             |
ferguson@icp.net            |   Privacy -- Use it or lose it.