[cryptome] Re: [cryptography] Internet Giants erect barriers to spy agencies

  • From: Iao <iao.ms88@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:40:25 -0600

"You  can  never  overestimate  the  amount
of  collusion  and  duplicity
in  any  of  these  cases."
   quote  from  Bo Ford


John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Maarten Billemont writes:
>"I feel there's an important implicit reference there I'm missing.
>What con in the 90s are you referring to?"
>The crypto wars of the 90s appeared to have been won, but instead
>were lost by misunderstanding of the deeper battlefield, and the craven
>patriotic nationalistic retreat from global devotion after 9/11. Dissidents
>became quiescent about NSA, warned of popular backlash to
>funding and reputation by challenging authority during crisis.
>Crypto and comsec promotion was curtailed, sensitive files
>were withdrawn, private words were whispered to "don't go too far."
>Protect the nation became dominant, to hell with foreigners as
>foreigners said to hell with the US. Music to all nationalistic spies
>Snowden's nationalism (don't harm the US) has brought nationalism
>back into fashion as US firms struggle to maintain global markets,
>not least by deploying technology funded by US spy industry, now
>as in the 1990s. Technology which the Snowden outlets continue
>to withhold, allegedly due to a pact with Snowden (withheld 97%
>of Guardian's claim, 99.999% of what DoD claimed).
>So rigged crypto is again being touted as the holy grail of comsec
>and privacy, by pretty much the same parties united in the 1990s
>by common nationalistic and economic interests cloaked in
>globalist market-freedom propaganda. "We have to help our
>spies because they help their spies steal economic secrets."
>9/11 failure of spies continues to be used as a rationale for
>more obsequiously, subversively, secretly empowing them.
>Is Snowden a tool, witting or unwitting, for this, hard to say,
>but his claim of "encryption works" certainly has the ring of
>enthusiastic crypto deception of the 1990s. Ring so beloved
>of the legal teams fronting the "lawful interception" deception
>movement, then and now.
>Note that all the hurrah about Reset the Net embraces the
>notion that corporations will institute cryptographic protection
>subject to lawful interception, the timeless evasion of faulty security
>where comsec promises are never fulfilled, and only fools would
>believe them, for goodness sake, have you no understanding
>of the real world?
>Comsec wizards chuckle on mail lists and at industry standards
>settings, our industry is fundamentally cheating, lying, stealing
>and taking adherents for a ride, spies our principal customers.
>At 09:47 AM 6/7/2014, you wrote:
>>On Jun 7, 2014, at 8:08, John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > No they haven't, Jim, you know that is a con from the 1990s.
>> > Same type of corporations pushing the deceptive scheme,
>> > matched by "displeasure" of the spies.
>>I feel there's an important implicit reference there I'm 
>>missing.  What con in the 90s are you referring to?

Other related posts: