At 11:26 PM -0500 8/14/04, Bruce Schneier wrote: >From: "Ken Lavender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ICS Atlanta > >I am APPAULED at your "comments" that you had made on your website: > > <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0407.html#9> > >You have statements are nothing but slander & defamation. They shall >be dealt with accordingly. > >Lie #1: "How do they demonstrate Tree's security? 'Over 100 >professionals in mathematics & in computer science at Massachusetts >Institute of Technology & at Georgia Tech, had sample encoded messages >submitted to them. Not a single person could break this code!'" That >is not the ONLY way we prove it. We have examples & offer to allow >people to submit their OWN messages to have encoded to SEE how good the >code is. So there are THREE methods, NOT just ONE as you IMPLY. > >Lie #2: "These guys sent unsolicited e-mails..." HOW do you KNOW that >this was the case? Have any PROOF of such? NO! > >Lie #3: "And if all that isn't enough to make you run screaming from >these guys, their website proudly proclaims: 'Tree Encoded Files Can Be >"Zipped."'" Because they can be "zipped" does NOT mean that it is "bad >encoding." The "code talkers" of ww2 used LANGUAGE to "code" the >messages, and THOSE COULD BE "ZIPPED"!!! And that code was NEVER BROKEN!!! > >Lie #4: "That's right; their encryption is so lousy that the >ciphertext doesn't even look random." AGAIN, HOW would you >KNOW??? Did you break it? NO! And what is "random"??? > > random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method > >"So lousy"? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW??? You would have to KNOW how we >encode BEFORE you can make such a statement, & YOU DO NOT KNOW >HOW!!! If it is SO LOUSY, how come NOBODY HAS BROKEN IT YET??? And we >have people ALL THE TIME trying to, with ZERO SUCCESS. > >I do not like you slandering something that you do not >understand. ATALL!!! > >The ONLY question you asked was "how long is the key" AND THAT WAS >IT! HOW long was the key that the 'code talkers' used? ZERO!!! JUST AS >OUR IS. The encoding routine was created, tested, & verified on PAPER >& PENCIL WITHOUT COMPUTERS! A child could encode data using our >routine. The computer is merely used to "speed-up" the process, NOT TO >CREATE IT. Our routine is based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH. So all of you >"comments" are just false, misleading & just plain ole lies! SHOW & >PROVE that it is NOT random. What is the PATTERN THEN??? > >I am DEMANDING A FULL RETRACTION OF YOUR COMMENTS & A FULL, COMPLETE >APOLOGY TO THESE AND ALL STATEMENTS. > >I am a person who tries to work with people as a man w/o having to >"drag" others into the mess. Others? THE COURTS. You have violated >Calf law by your statements. > >[Text of California Civil Code Section 46 deleted.] > >Your LIES have damaged my respect in my job & has damaged any sales of >this routine. You have ZERO proof of your "comments," ANY OF >THEM!!! I beseech of you, do the RIGHT THING and comply. I DO NOT >wish to escalate this matter any higher. And remember this, Tree is >based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >[Phone number deleted out of mercy.]
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
