From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 19:15:28 PST
To: ECafe Anonymous Remailer <cpunk@remail.ecafe.org>
Subject: Re: The Problem With Blaze And Weinstein
In-Reply-To: <199512202018.UAA02824@pangaea.ang.ecafe.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.951221021253.27593D-100000@usr1.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



    OK, you're afraid of AT&T's lawyers. give me a break --who's chicken?
  they are not the government, they can not put you in jail and charges
  would never stick.
    both Blaze and Weinstein are bound by their employment contracts from 
    discussing political hot-potatoes. Weinstein did state rather 
  emphatically the opinions of the crew at Netscape did not conform to
  the apparently misguided statements of the dupe of government.
    blaze has sent plenty of code our way --even obtaining permission from
  at&t which is a real big brother.

    Have you been arrested and charged for crypto (non-export)?  - I have.
    Have you been arrested and charged for technology export?  - I have.
    Have you been raided more than once by the Feds?  - I have.
    Have you been excluded from at&t machines except murray hill and other
  labs because system managers don't like programmers knowledgable in
  crypto and kernels ? - I have.

    Did I ever break into systems or alter data --no, that's not ethical.
    Could I? -yes, presumably some.

    "Membership" in Cypherpunks is not predicated on supporting _your_
  political agenda or beliefs. In fact, too much bandwidth is expended
  on arguing about political policy. I agree with Perry that postings 
  should be crypto design and implementation. 

    I have suggested that even announcements of crypto political
  activities should be put up like John Young posts: one paragraph
  synopsis and a reference to get the whole thing, but no discussion 
  --take it elsewhere.

    As for the attacks on Perry, they are inexcusable. You obviously 
  have no idea what crypto Perry codes.

    I have not published crypto code for a long time.  I am wrapping up, 
  after a _long_ hiatus, one which will really take their socks off --with
  their shoes still on.  I'd love to release it to public domain, but____

    What am I going to do with it? dunno, probably put the tape on the 
  shelf; I escaped the hard hand of justice, a poor man, the last time 
  when I tried to enter the code in evidence. Now I am "20 years older and
  deeper in debt" [Tennessee Ernie style]; is it worth it? I've done my
  time, and code has a signature. I think I would prefer to enjoy my five
  children and a few grandchildren. But it has been a good exercise....

    No, Mr. ECafe Anonymous _chicken_, you're the despicable party. Put 
  your imprint on your attacks and accusations: the Constitution says you 
  are entitled to _face_ your accusers.

    If you want to argue about constitutional or God given rights --do it in 
  other forums. If you want to denigrate blaze, weinstein, perry, and maybe 
  even tcmay, just drop yourself off the cpunk mailing list.

    meanwhile, get out of our collective faces and let us do a little 
  code, I intend to finish my work, and then I can have a depression
  trying to decide whether I want to go the round, again. 

    ATTILA
		==============================

On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, ECafe Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm
> sure these people are very smart and have
> written lots of good code. I'm sure they're
> very nice and never kick their dogs.  I'm
> just tired of people defending them as
> cypherpunks.
> 
> They aren't cypherpunks.
> 
> Neither has come out against GAK. They
> both carefully avoid commiting to any
> statement. They want us to think they're
> "one of us" but they don't want to be
> pinned down because they are double dipping
> on both sides of the fence.
> 
> Blaze even does "research" on GAK. See
> his web page for evidence. Also the TIS
> report. The fact that he found a bug in
> clipper doesn't change this. It proves
> it.  He works for the government, via att.
> 
> Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by
> working at the company that the government
> has chosen to bring it to you now that
> att has failed.
> 
> WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE
> PEOPLE? DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED
> WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID
> TO LOOK CLOSELY?
> 
> No, I did not post the RSA patch. I wouldn't
> touch any of that code with a 5 meter pole.
> 
> To the guy who says write code: I've
> written plenty of code. Clue: your probably
> running some of it right now.
> 
> I'm anonymous because I've seen FIRST HAND
> what the att lawyers do to people who
> tell the wrong kind of truth.
> 
> Want me to be a 'nym. OK.
> 
> s/ Bill Gates (he has good lawyers that
> can handle att and netscape)
>