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

Header Data

From: IPG Sales <ipgsales@cyberstation.net>
To: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Message Hash: bd7d232e24fd72af47930e7cf52a43058143afa37ae62be3835438588e5557c6
Message ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960220205816.21251A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
Reply To: <v02120d05ad5033345066@DialupEudora>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-21 08:52:38 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:52:38 +0800

Raw message

From: IPG Sales <ipgsales@cyberstation.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:52:38 +0800
To: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
In-Reply-To: <v02120d05ad5033345066@DialupEudora>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960220205816.21251A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, t byfield wrote:

> At 6:46 PM 2/20/96, IPG Sales wrote:
> >Hedging, hedging, hedging - why? I did not noitice this <...>
>         IPG, why don't you sit down and draw up the terms of a challenge?
> Specify:
B>         * what information and/or materials IPG will release
>         * to whom it will release them and when
>         * who is or isn't elligible
>         * what you will and won't accept as "breaking your system"
>         * the arbitrating body
>         * a starting time and a deadline
>         * the award
>         You'd do well to be _very_ thorough in these terms, since any
> perception that IPG was trying to throw the game would draw that much more
> fire. You'd also do well to make terms terms conform to real-world
> circumstances: for example, if someone hacking the office machines on which
> which you generate, store, and/or disseminate RNs is a practical threat to
> your product, then admit that as an acceptable part of a "break."
> Ted

It seems to me that Cypherpunks, the mailing list of individuals, has a 
very practical solution to the argument - Derek asked for certain things 
- we agreed fully with those terms  - we will provide the complete 
set of algorithms employed - we will also provide a free demo system(s) - > 

Unlike Mr. Silvernail, we have a much simplier definition of what we mean 
by a one time pad - given a message/file of length N, where N is a finite 
practical number say less than 10 to the 1000th power, that the encrypted 
ciphertext can be any of the N to the 256th power possibile clear/plain 
text messages/files.  To prove that the IPG system does not work, all you 
have to do is to prove that is not the case - that our system, without 
artifically imposed boundary conditions will generate a subset of those 
possibilities  - that is simple and strsight forward - not 
hyperbole but action - everyone stated how simple it was to break the system,
now everyone is back paddling aa fast as they can, like Mr. Metzger and some of the other big bad cyphermouths. 

Put up or shut up - why is everyone all of a sudden backing away from 
what Derek proposed - because we proposed a two way street -  operhaps 
that is the real underlying problem - you are suddenly afraid that 
you are wrong - some of the cyphermouths want to argue 
semantics and abstract theory but no one wants to prove anything one way 
or the other - this is also my answer to Mr. Metzger - do as you like, I have 
absolutely no ability to force you to do anything, just like you have no 
ability to prove us wrong, absolutely zero ability, just talk, talk, 
and more talk - no substamce anymore - just talk - talk - we are the big 
bad wolf, doctor,  that is going to kill our patients, you have the power to 
prevent that Perry - why don't you do it? You had rather sit omn the 
sideliunes and tell everyone how great you are - you are not concerned 
about the patients like you claimed yesterday, you are only 
concerned about youself - You have the ability to try to prove us wrong - 
do it. How about some action from someone, we have two taker - now, anymore?

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 - 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 - .

They are afraid they may be wrong and they most assuredly are - I believe 
our offer to be fair, let us hear what Derek has to say when he gets around 
to it. 

Let Derek, Inccarth, and Adam be the aribtion committee, decide whether 
the system is fataklly flawed or not - we will accept their findings 
subject to only one caveat, that they have the intellectual honesty to 
tell the truth. 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.   

Also, let them decide and report to the other Cypherpunks, whether we 
were justified in witholding broad dissemination of certain materials -
the onlu caveat there is that they wait threee months, or until they 
break the system to make that report, and again conform to a high standard 
of intellectual honesty. 

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 -

Sigh -