From: Bovine Remailer <haystack@cow.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:28:34 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <9612060114.AA15422@cow.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 3:28 PM 12/4/1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote:
>nobody writes:
>>  She is seen as "one of us" because she wrote a book on
>>  cryptography.  As a consequence, she is seen as a traitor.
>>  I am not endorsing this view.
>
>She didn't just write a book on cryptography, but several books.  She is also  
>the Chairperson (eek, PC titles...) of the CS department at Georgetown, a  
>very respectable institution, and has taught classes there on cryptology.  She  
>has also done research on crytpographic access control to databases and other  
>stuff.  So as far as being a cryptologist she is quite learned and should  
>deserve respect regardless of her political views.
>
>However, after reviewing the Skipjack algorithm (of course her being invited  
>to look at it was certainly due to her anti-strong-crypto-for-the-masses  
>views), she said something to the effect of "We looked at it over the weekend  
>and couldn't find anything wrong with it, so you should trust it." when she  
>knows damned well that you can't evaluate a cypher in three days.  It is for  
>this that she no longer deserves respect as a cryptologist.  She basically  
>cashed in her reputation-capital to help the U.S. Govt. dupe the American  
>people into buying Clipper.  Fortunately, we didn't buy it.

You make an excellent point.  Didn't Denning claim that they just
reviewed NSA's evaluation process?  Regardless, the claim that
SKIPJACK is therefore trustworthy is irresponsible.

Sir Galahad