🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <543@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> simsong@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Simson L. Garfinkel) writes ( in his .signature file) :
>
>================================================================
>			Simson L. Garfinkel
>			MIT Media Lab
>
>This posting completely reflects my views. Isn't that neat?
>-- 
> [ line containing words NSA suppossedly scans for; deleted -gpv ]
> The above is food for the NSA line eater.  Add it to your .signature and
> you too can help overflow the NSA's ability to scan all traffic going in or
> out of the USA looking for "significant" words.  (This is not a joke, sadly.)

    I may not condone the NSA's practice of searching exported data for 
'significant words' but as long as the practice is legal, and while my
tax dollars are helping to support their efforts , I'd like to see the
NSA operate as effeciantly as possiable .
    If you don't like what they do, there are more constructive ways to
protest .  Your .signature file is not going to make them stop or even to
consider stopping their suppossed actions. You accomplish nothing, they
continue as always. At most you've wasted a couple of seconds of some poor
clods day and burned up few nano-seconds of Cray cpu time. So what. Sounds
real adolescent to me.

------------- fold, spindle, mutilate at will ------(it's your CRT) ----
 Gordon P. Vickers
 Signetics Corp., PO Box 409, M/S 69, Sunnyvale, Ca 94086 
 {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!philabs!prls!ems
  or
 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!amdimage!prls!ems              

   Kick the habit: ask the American Lung Association about their 
    "Freedom From Smoking" class. It worked for me, the wife, and 75%
     of the class. What a differance! Its GREAT! 
    
  [ In this correspondance, I am representing myself and no others. 
  I am not part of the PRLS group, but they are nice enough to allow me
  to TIP(1) to an account on their machine so I can send/receive email.] 

>           Your .signature file is not going to make them stop or even to
>consider stopping their suppossed actions. You accomplish nothing, they
>continue as always. At most you've wasted a couple of seconds of some poor
>clods day and burned up few nano-seconds of Cray cpu time. So what. Sounds
>real adolescent to me.

Speaking as a System Administrator who has been both perpetrator and
victim of both friendly and hostile attacks, I say PLEASE KEEP
ATTACKING!!!!!  A security system that is installed and never tested
never shows its flaws until too late.  I, personally, would rather be
under friendly attack that shows me how to shield myself rather than
become victim (again!) of a hostile attack.

If these simple attacks show up a flaw in this supposed keyword
seaching of exported data, then this will force our security agencies
to come up with better measures, which, in turn, enhances our own
security.

To bring this back to sci.crypt, would you buy a cryptographic system
from some guy that tells you "This system is so hard to break, we
don't even bother testing it!"?

These are my opinions, not necessarily those of my employer, my
friends, my enemies, or any of my other personalities.  My new
flameproof armor needs a field test; do you need to test your new
flamethrower?

					Eric the DBA

In article <2485@prls.UUCP> ems@prls.UUCP (Gordon Vickers) writes:
>
>    I may not condone the NSA's practice of searching exported data for 
>'significant words' but as long as the practice is legal, and while my
>tax dollars are helping to support their efforts , I'd like to see the
>NSA operate as effeciantly as possiable .
>    If you don't like what they do, there are more constructive ways to
>protest .  Your .signature file is not going to make them stop or even to
>consider stopping their suppossed actions. You accomplish nothing, they
>continue as always. At most you've wasted a couple of seconds of some poor
>clods day and burned up few nano-seconds of Cray cpu time. So what. Sounds
>real adolescent to me.
>
  Hm... As a Canadian, I'm not too up-to-date on U.S. counterintelligence,
but I don't think tapping every single phone line that goes across the
U.S. border is fully legal.  It's just that the NSA has been doing it for
so long, and can stonewall so well ("We can't tell you for security reasons")
that nobody's ever made an issue of it.

  But still, we don't need to make things *too* easy for them.  I'd say one
article could take a reasonable fraction of a minute to prosess, considering
it probably crosses the border several times.

	-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)

Zippy says:
I just heard the SEVENTIES were over!!  And I was just getting in touch
with my LEISURE SUIT!!

In article <2485@prls.UUCP> ems@prls.UUCP (Gordon Vickers) writes:
   [complaint about the NSA food fad being in-appropriate]

All of the posters have overlooked the far more extensive GRU and KGB
monitoring of both international and domestic US telecommunications.
We may be wasting a few cycles on an NSA machine, but we are also
wasting many more cycles on KGB machines.  They get all the interior
US traffic to browse also.  I don't mind wasting their time at all.

Lets keep up the KGB food, keep those Moscow computers busy.
-- 
				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA