From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:14:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: S/MIME
Message-ID: <199711042050.VAA08680@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >>There is an old saying in the Security Field: "Poor Security is worse
> >>than no security at all".

>    at 11:24 AM, Ian Clysdale <iancly@entrust.com> said:
> 
> >   Sorry, I'm going to continue to take a viewpoint that I suspect is
> >rather unpopular in this list, and argue for the advantages of weak
> >crypto in certain circumstances

> This is nothing but selfserving bullshit in a vain effort to justify YOUR
> sellout for a paycheck.

Nortel is nothing more than a Canadian schill for the SnoopSpooks.

Just as the INSLAW Thieves & Murderers used Indian Reservations in an
attempt to pretend that they weren't breaking US law because their
actions were taking place on the soil of a Soverign Nation, the US
criminals use the same bullshit logic to circumvent the laws that
apply to their illegal actions.

It is no coincidence that Nortel is the nesting place of a wide
variety of censorship vermin such as Chris Lewis, and his ilk.
An analysis of a number of employees of Nortel and their bum
buddies shows that the time spent in their output of UseNet
cancels and FUD posts and emails corresponds to the hours of
a corporate work schedule.

Nortel is nothing more than a front for the SnoopSpooks who 
want to capitalize on Canada's image as a Soverign Country
to push their backdoor products in the global community.
These are the same lame fuckers who pulled off this act
in Switzerland, with governments and corporations buying
security products from a country noted for its neutrality,
and then finding out later that it was a front for a
German company that had the CIA's nose up their butt.

It amazes me that corporations and governments put their trust
in any company with the word 'Security' in its name, without
doing a check on their backgrounds and connections that is
at least as intensive as they would do for a new employee.