On 7/09/13 01:51 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
ianG <i...@iang.org> writes:

And, controlling processes is just what the NSA does.


How does '(a) Organizations and Conferences' differ from SOP for these sorts
of things?

In principle, it doesn't -- which is why SOPs are saboteur's tools of preference. They are used against you, as the lesser experienced people can't see the acts behind [1]

The point is one of degree. SOPs are there to resolve real disputes. They can also be used to cause disputes, and to turn any innocent thing into a fight. So do that, and keep doing that! Pretty soon the org becomes a farce.

In contrast, strong leadership (the chair) knows when to put the lid on such trivialities and move on. So, part of the overall strategy is to neutralise the strong chair [2]. As John just reported:

  *  NSA employees participted throughout, and occupied leadership roles
     in the committee and among the editors of the documents

Slam dunk. If the NSA had wanted it, they would have designed it themselves. The only conclusion for their presence that is rational is to sabotage it [3].


[0]   SOPs is standard operating procedures.
[1] This is the flaw in "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." Explaining by incompetence does not eliminate that malice inspired incompetence. Remember, we are all innoculated against malice, so we prefer to see benign causes. [2] this is not to say that committees are ill-intentioned or people are bad, but that it only takes a few with malicious intent and expertise to bring the whole game to a halt. Cartels such as IETF WGs are fundamentally and inescapably fragile. [3] as a sort of summer-flu-shot, I present that document to each new board as their SOPs.
The cryptography mailing list

Reply via email to