Sir Hansen: Well, pseudonyms do not make my words less valid. I am not one of the gpg-using advocates, who has to be open, and forthcoming with all to make a point. A pseudonym is well within my rights. You simply don´t need to know. That assymetric advantage is your own fault. It was yor choice to use a name. Don´t discredit me for being more.. distrusting.. I didn´t know that gmail is disposable.. hmm.. Once again, we all are subjected to what Mr.Hansen feels. If you read NDA´s carefully, not all agencies (not units) are the same when it comes to disclosure. Speaking in generalities is quite legal depending on context, country, purpose, and ofc what agency one is affiliated with. (It is not neccesarily the same in your country as it is elsewhere. ) Nice strawman , and a perfect example of implicit assumptions however. Moving on, back to crypto.. However yes, I do agree with you that skepticism is warranted. Especially when academics are supposed to know more of field-crypto than the practitioners who are actually at risk. Ofc said practitioners are generally in locales, and roles in which the only peer-review is what they receive from their captors if they get caught. Whether in a military or paramilitary capacity... I thank you for your viewpoints all the same Sir Hansen. The contemporary civilian perspectives on crypto are quite illuminating all the same.
The real question is why secrecy and the employment of pseudonym is frowned upon both in society, and ... here? Thank you and Good Day sir.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
