1996-10-18 - Re: Comments on binding cryptography (1)

Header Data

From: “Bert-Jaap Koops” <E.J.Koops@kub.nl>
To: Dale Thorn <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: c10089c2d99d7bc982ad18fc49ed6c7e2f6b611cea257f4efecacbf658c2a05f
Message ID: <809F2C77EB0@frw3.kub.nl>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-18 08:03:51 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:03:51 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: "Bert-Jaap Koops" <E.J.Koops@kub.nl>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dale Thorn <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Comments on binding cryptography (1)
Message-ID: <809F2C77EB0@frw3.kub.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> wrote:
[many things, including]
> So where in 
> the U.S. are you gonna get TRP's who will not *ever* "leak" your files 
> to an interested agency without proper warrant?
[and]
> They sure as hell don't trust us, now do they?  

This indicates exactly our difference of opinion, which I noticed 
already in my posting. We have different views on governments, so be 
it. 

> cypherpunks are not merely paranoid (paranoia as a Way Of Knowing), 
> they're very adept at telling you exactly how the criminals and 
> terrorists will get around this hokum, and you're in denial about it.
If you can tell me exactly how criminals can get around the 
cryptographic protocol in the way the proposal tries to prevent 
(unilateral fraud), I very much would like to hear so. If you mean 
criminals can agree to use superencryption (or PGP for that matter), 
I don't deny that, as you might have noticed.

Bert-Jaap





Thread