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

  • From: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:26:00 +0100

Dear Ian,
One person's collusion is another persons co-operation. What is the difference? What about the co-operation/collusion between competitors...
Douglas Rankine

On 07/06/14 19:40, Iao wrote:
"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were withdrawn, private words were whispered to "don't go too far."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: