PGP has a backdoor in for the government?

Discussion in 'privacy technology' started by notageek, Nov 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gunnarj

    gunnarj Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Posts:
    80
    LOL.


    Go get 'em, J. Edgar! :D
     
  2. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,280
    Location:
    New England
    gunnarj,

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I really think this was a challenge to you "gunnarj" to actually provide proof - any proof - any at all...

    Do you have any?
     
  3. gunnarj

    gunnarj Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Posts:
    80
    Do you really think that *if* the NSA or other similar agencies had a back door to the most popular crypto program that there would be 'proof', i.e. something that could be proved in a court of law?

    So, I'm taking your question as a facetious one, not really something you expect an affirmative answer to. Your question was framed in such a way as to give away your intent in asking the question;

    ...as if this question by itself wins some kind of debate. I think the question was answered early on in this thread when I mentioned not expecting evidence that could be proved in a 'court of law'.


    It was never my intent here to provide 'proof' of a back door to PGP, nor did I ever say that it was. I responded to someone else's question with quotes and links and my own opinion as to whether or not it ws likely that there is indeed a back door. Since we affirmed early on that there is no 100 percent postitive way to say that there is no back door, my point was to put my opinion in context by showing the ways that goverment is indeed involved in surveillance including computer surveillance. That in itself should give anyone pause, instead of becoming combative and insisting on a "proof' that I never said was there in the first place.


    cheerio ;)

    gj
     
  4. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,280
    Location:
    New England
    Ah, I see.

    Thanks, that makes it all very clear.
     
  5. gunnarj

    gunnarj Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Posts:
    80
    Sarcasm is par for the course when one brings up anything critical to popular opinion, and when someone challenges "experts", especially "computer experts".

    Such a withering final shot, "LowWaterMark". You sure 'nuff put me in my place.


    If my answer wasn't sufficiently clear, I humbly apologise. and beg your favour.

    Hope I haven't unneccesarily antagonized too many here!!
     
  6. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,280
    Location:
    New England
    Well, what can I say - that's the way I replied. But, you seem to be saying that the lack of proof is proof. Or that the NSA or whoever is so beyond anyone's understanding that no one could ever see the truth...

    But that is wrong. Have you looked at the source code to PGP? It is available and the truth about it is there to be seen. (And yes, I've looked at it myself. My company bought the rights to the source code during the period that NAI owned it so we could port it over to the OpenVMS environment. We did so and found no backdoors, hidden keys, etc.)

    The truth may be out there, but in this case the truth is that all these claims about government backdoors is just rumors. Nothing but rumors that some people start repeating as if that makes it true.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.