"You can never overestimate the amount of collusion and duplicity in any of these cases." quote from Bo Ford Iao 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were withdrawn, private words were whispered to "don't go too far."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 >industries > >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? > > >