🚀 go-pugleaf

>This raises the question of whether Sidelnikov had some senior role,
>directly or indirectly, in the Soviet's equivalent of the NSA. If he
>did, then his comments may be both authoritative with respect to
>access to what once was highly classified technology in the USSR,
>and (by the argument of parallelism) revelatory of the state of
>technology at the NSA.

Sheesh, what garbage. Phil Zimmermann's responses were right on the
mark. If Sidelnikov has a point to make he should present evidence
not conclusions. The basis of science is verifiability, not conjecture.
Qualifications are good things to put into introductory remarks for
speakers but they have no bearing on the accuracy of the statements.

Or have you forgotten how many Nobel Prize-winning scientists had
crackpot theories in addition to their Nobel work!