1996-02-21 - Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)

Header Data

From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
To: ipgsales@cyberstation.net (IPG Sales)
Message Hash: 8c5d6531a99a29321f3805537917df5ac5bc93d58d480a2509b0499fb89b9e22
Message ID: <960221.070612.7F0.rnr.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Reply To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960220205816.21251A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-21 17:39:33 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 01:39:33 +0800

Raw message

From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 01:39:33 +0800
To: ipgsales@cyberstation.net (IPG Sales)
Subject: Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960220205816.21251A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
Message-ID: <960221.070612.7F0.rnr.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In list.cypherpunks, ipgsales@cyberstation.net writes:

> Unlike Mr. Silvernail, we have a much simplier definition of what we mean 
> by a one time pad

First of all, I note to the list that I have exchanged some email with
IPGsales, whence this reference comes.  I had hoped there would be
enough integrity in IPGsales that sie would note the difference between
private mail and mail to the list.

The gist of my mail has been that IPGsales likes to redefine accepted
terms of art to their own benefit.  I didn't (and don't) define what a
one time pad is.  I simply noted that PRNG-based systems are not one time
pads, and asked that IPGsales refrain from mislabeling their system as

> I do not want to argue semantics with Mr. Silvernail, or Mr. Metzger - 
> they have an opinion - that does not prove them right - they are entitled 
> to their opinion - but they would rather castigate us out of hand than 
> prove us wrong -

Any castigation I offered was far from "out of hand".  IPGsales is
promoting a system using plainly incorrect terminology.  IMHO, this
choice of terminology speaks volumes about the crypto expertise (or lack
thereof) they have brought to the table.

> they want to talk, talk, talk but not do anything. It is
> obviously that both are dodging the issue, by taking their own narrow 
> minded view of what is and is not the truth  - both are all talk but no 
> action - a lot of bull and arbitrary  posturing, but that is all itis, pure 
> unadultarated bull - .

Consider it, then, a response in kind to your own unadulterated bull.

> I believe that since Mr. Silvernail and Mr. Metzger have
> exluded themselves, that Derek, Inccarth and Adam do have that 
> intellectual honesty to tell the truth - is that weighted too much in 
> IPGs favor.

I'll guess here that my refusal to accept IPGsales' new definitions for
accepted terms has been taken as 'excluding myself'.  So be it.  Perhaps
IPGsales is miffed that I said I would advise my clients against their

> What can be more fair than that, you own members can be the entire 
> judging committee - are you afraid of the truth - if you cannot accept 
> that you are. Tthat could be your only real reason fornot  facing it. I 
> believe that many of you are now backtracfking because you are afraid of 
> the truth - we invite whatever number you might choose to try - if some 
> subset of Cyberpunks break the system, then they can publish everything -

(can anyone else parse this?)  BTW, this ain't alt.cyberpunk.  More
problems with terminology?

I don't have to break the IPG system.  It was born broken.  I am not
about to trust my key generation to people who can't even get basic
technical terms correct, much less trust them not to send copies of the
keys offsite to the NSA^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H for disposal.  (recall that
IPGsales said no copies of the keys were retained _by them_)

Snake oil is only good if you have a squeaky snake.
- -- 
Roy M. Silvernail, writing from roy@cybrspc.mn.org
"Ah, man.. you hit the nails right on the heads there.  However, I think
you drove them right into your own forehead."
        -- datsun@wasteland.spam.org (Datsun Q. Wanderer)

Version: 2.6.2