The Problem With Blaze And Weinstein

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm
sure these people are very smart and have
written lots of good code. I'm sure they're
very nice and never kick their dogs.  I'm
just tired of people defending them as
cypherpunks.

They aren't cypherpunks.

Neither has come out against GAK. They
both carefully avoid commiting to any
statement. They want us to think they're
"one of us" but they don't want to be
pinned down because they are double dipping
on both sides of the fence.

Blaze even does "research" on GAK. See
his web page for evidence. Also the TIS
report. The fact that he found a bug in
clipper doesn't change this. It proves
it.  He works for the government, via att.

Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by
working at the company that the government
has chosen to bring it to you now that
att has failed.

WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE
PEOPLE? DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED
WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID
TO LOOK CLOSELY?

No, I did not post the RSA patch. I wouldn't
touch any of that code with a 5 meter pole.

To the guy who says write code: I've
written plenty of code. Clue: your probably
running some of it right now.

I'm anonymous because I've seen FIRST HAND
what the att lawyers do to people who
tell the wrong kind of truth.

Want me to be a 'nym. OK.

s/ Bill Gates (he has good lawyers that
can handle att and netscape)

ECafe Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> 
> I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm
> sure these people are very smart and have
> written lots of good code. I'm sure they're
> very nice and never kick their dogs.  I'm
> just tired of people defending them as
> cypherpunks.
> 
> They aren't cypherpunks.
> 
> Neither has come out against GAK. They
> both carefully avoid commiting to any
> statement. They want us to think they're
> "one of us" but they don't want to be
> pinned down because they are double dipping
> on both sides of the fence.

> Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by
> working at the company that the government
> has chosen to bring it to you now that
> att has failed.

  I am against GAK.  I have been contributing to EFF for
years.  I have written and faxed my representatives in congress
stating my position against both GAK and government censorship
of the net.  The reason I'm working on security code at netscape
is that I think it may be the only way to foil the government's
plans to remove all privacy from its citizens is mass market
strong encryption software.

  Why do you believe that Netscape has been chosen by the
government to bring GAK to the masses?  Because of the
uninformed and misguided comments of Jim Clark?  Jim has been
educated and the company has taken a firm position against
government control of crypto.  When you go to the store today
and buy netscape you get strong encryption out of the box,
without any GAK.

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.

ECafe Anonymous Remailer writes:
> I'm not trying to start a flame war.

Really?

> They aren't cypherpunks.
> 
> Neither has come out against GAK.

You obviously have never spoken to Matt.

> Blaze even does "research" on GAK.

No, he does research on private escrow. Thats not the same thing as
GAK. Private escrow is sensible -- you don't want just one person with
the keys to, say, the personel records. What happens if they get hit
by a car?

> DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT
> YOUR AFRAID TO LOOK CLOSELY?

Actually, Matt has a Ph.D. from Princeton.

> WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE PEOPLE?

Maybe I defend Matt because I think I know him pretty well -- we met
when he showed up at the Columbia U. computer science department in
the mid 1980s, and among other things we shared an office at Bellcore
for a year or two, and he's about as cryptography and privacy friendly
a person as you can find.

Maybe I defend him because you are likely an idiot who's never so much
as chatted with him.

Maybe I'm bored.

Who knows.

Perry

Anonymous "Bill Gates" writes:
> I'm not trying to start a flame war. 

Bullshit. 

[inconsequential prattle elided]

This thread is completely off-topic. Besides, we've gone through all this on
the list before. Let's not continue it. We all have more productive things
to do with our time.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>

I think this conversation is getting silly even by net.standards.

On the one hand we have the screaming libertarians with a bunch of 
wedged political notions about property. On the other we have what 
appear to be arch anti-capitalists claiming that nobody who earns
a living out of crypto can be a cypherpunk. What is really strange
is that these appear to be the _same_ people.

Now I'm not one for supporting corporativism but consider this, most
if not all of the technical contributors to this list who can earn
money from their crypto knowledge do so. Matt and Jeff are not alone
in being paid for their abilities.

Another thing is that many of us are also into government contract
work up to their necks. The Web consortium is funded partly through
an ARPA grant. MIT is practically floating on government subsidies.
Yes this is where your tax dollars go, learn to love it or die 
bitching.

The point is that the tourist element who gripe on about nothing other
than their political views and never contribute any technical input are
not the people that make the list work. People like Matt and Jeff are
the people who make the list worthwhile.


		Phill

hallam@w3.org writes:
> On the one hand we have the screaming libertarians with a bunch of 
> wedged political notions about property. On the other we have what 
> appear to be arch anti-capitalists claiming that nobody who earns
> a living out of crypto can be a cypherpunk. What is really strange
> is that these appear to be the _same_ people.

No, Phil. We have just one person who's an annoying nutcase who's been
bothering us, and lord knows what he really thinks.

.pm

OK, you're afraid of AT&T's lawyers. give me a break --who's chicken?
  they are not the government, they can not put you in jail and charges
  would never stick.
    both Blaze and Weinstein are bound by their employment contracts from 
    discussing political hot-potatoes. Weinstein did state rather 
  emphatically the opinions of the crew at Netscape did not conform to
  the apparently misguided statements of the dupe of government.
    blaze has sent plenty of code our way --even obtaining permission from
  at&t which is a real big brother.

    Have you been arrested and charged for crypto (non-export)?  - I have.
    Have you been arrested and charged for technology export?  - I have.
    Have you been raided more than once by the Feds?  - I have.
    Have you been excluded from at&t machines except murray hill and other
  labs because system managers don't like programmers knowledgable in
  crypto and kernels ? - I have.

    Did I ever break into systems or alter data --no, that's not ethical.
    Could I? -yes, presumably some.

    "Membership" in Cypherpunks is not predicated on supporting _your_
  political agenda or beliefs. In fact, too much bandwidth is expended
  on arguing about political policy. I agree with Perry that postings 
  should be crypto design and implementation. 

    I have suggested that even announcements of crypto political
  activities should be put up like John Young posts: one paragraph
  synopsis and a reference to get the whole thing, but no discussion 
  --take it elsewhere.

    As for the attacks on Perry, they are inexcusable. You obviously 
  have no idea what crypto Perry codes.

    I have not published crypto code for a long time.  I am wrapping up, 
  after a _long_ hiatus, one which will really take their socks off --with
  their shoes still on.  I'd love to release it to public domain, but____

    What am I going to do with it? dunno, probably put the tape on the 
  shelf; I escaped the hard hand of justice, a poor man, the last time 
  when I tried to enter the code in evidence. Now I am "20 years older and
  deeper in debt" [Tennessee Ernie style]; is it worth it? I've done my
  time, and code has a signature. I think I would prefer to enjoy my five
  children and a few grandchildren. But it has been a good exercise....

    No, Mr. ECafe Anonymous _chicken_, you're the despicable party. Put 
  your imprint on your attacks and accusations: the Constitution says you 
  are entitled to _face_ your accusers.

    If you want to argue about constitutional or God given rights --do it in 
  other forums. If you want to denigrate blaze, weinstein, perry, and maybe 
  even tcmay, just drop yourself off the cpunk mailing list.

    meanwhile, get out of our collective faces and let us do a little 
  code, I intend to finish my work, and then I can have a depression
  trying to decide whether I want to go the round, again. 

    ATTILA
		==============================

On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, ECafe Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm
> sure these people are very smart and have
> written lots of good code. I'm sure they're
> very nice and never kick their dogs.  I'm
> just tired of people defending them as
> cypherpunks.
> 
> They aren't cypherpunks.
> 
> Neither has come out against GAK. They
> both carefully avoid commiting to any
> statement. They want us to think they're
> "one of us" but they don't want to be
> pinned down because they are double dipping
> on both sides of the fence.
> 
> Blaze even does "research" on GAK. See
> his web page for evidence. Also the TIS
> report. The fact that he found a bug in
> clipper doesn't change this. It proves
> it.  He works for the government, via att.
> 
> Weinstein is actively promoting GAK by
> working at the company that the government
> has chosen to bring it to you now that
> att has failed.
> 
> WHY IS EVERYONE SO QUICK TO DEFEND THESE
> PEOPLE? DO THEY HAVE YOU ALL SO IMPRESSED
> WITH THEIR MASTERS DEGREES THAT YOUR AFRAID
> TO LOOK CLOSELY?
> 
> No, I did not post the RSA patch. I wouldn't
> touch any of that code with a 5 meter pole.
> 
> To the guy who says write code: I've
> written plenty of code. Clue: your probably
> running some of it right now.
> 
> I'm anonymous because I've seen FIRST HAND
> what the att lawyers do to people who
> tell the wrong kind of truth.
> 
> Want me to be a 'nym. OK.
> 
> s/ Bill Gates (he has good lawyers that
> can handle att and netscape)
>