Love it! Vintage, laser-accurate JY
On 28/02/2016 10:54, John Young wrote:
DoJ is required to cloak NSA-CIA capabilities by pretending full sharing
does not take place. Redacted and excluded filings and decisions by DoJ,
district, appeal, SCOTUS and FISA courts along with open and classified
executive orders by and POTUS, and best of all, classified contracts,
In olden days there was a fairy-land time when NSA-CIA were required to
select and "minimize" (except in wartime and emergencies) their take and
capabilities with FBI and law enforcement, but no longer, the Patriot Act
Dr Zeuss loosened the ties that never bound.
Going to court melodramatizes and sanitizes the bung-holing (like USG v.
with in camera, withholding, stonewalling and denying. It should be
Dear Dummies, that lawyers, security clearance holders, corporations,
and greeders who assist and abet spying understand how to play this
rigged game to keep the public "safe and secure" in blissful passivity.
Encryption, necessarily quietly compromised for dependable marketability,
has always been a formulaic-algorithmic Faustian character in the
comsec-infosec charade where official secrecy triumphs over chaotic
This big-budget high-profit Broadway performance is called "The
At 08:06 PM 2/27/2016, you wrote:
isn't there supposed to be "sharing" when it comes to terrorism.
patriot act & such.
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM From: "John Young"
<jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
cryptography@xxxxxxxxxxxx, cryptography@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re:
[cryptography] [Cryptography] USG v. Apple, Apple Motion to Vacate
At 11:13 AM 2/26/2016, Henry Baker wrote: >If this interpretation of
the All Writs Act is upheld, then the DOJ >will have to consult with
the intelligence community prior to >compelling companies like Apple
to decrypt phones. It would be quite >interesting for DOJ to publicly
stipulate that NSA could (or could >not) break into iOS 8 or 9. This
is truly a sticky wicket, since the >intelligence community is
generally prohibited from working on >domestic issues. We asked for an
opinion of Michael Froomkin, Law Professor at University of Miami, on
Henry Baker's comments:
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing