Comment by throwaway654329
3 years ago
Dismissing this lawsuit as a conspiracy theory is embarrassing for both of them.
There is ample evidence to document malfeasance by the involved parties, and it’s reasonable to ask NIST to follow public law.
3 years ago
Dismissing this lawsuit as a conspiracy theory is embarrassing for both of them.
There is ample evidence to document malfeasance by the involved parties, and it’s reasonable to ask NIST to follow public law.
> Dismissing this lawsuit as a conspiracy theory is embarrassing for both of them.
They are not dismissing the lawsuit.
One says he’s doing it wrong. The other says he hopes that he wins, of course!
Meanwhile they go on to attack Bernstein, mischaracterize his writing, completely dismiss his historical analysis, mock him with memes as a conspiracy theorist, and to top it off they question his internal motivations (which they somehow know) as some kind of a sore loser which is demonstrably false.
The plot twist for the last point: he is still in the running for round four and his former PhD students did win major parts of round three.
Two things can easily be true: that NIST mishandled a FOIA request, and that there isn't especially good reason to accept on faith Bernstein's concerns about the PQC process, which is unrelated to how they handle FOIA.
Meanwhile: you haven't actually added any light to this subthread: the tweets we're talking about do not dismiss the suit. Cryptographic researchers that aren't stans of Daniel Bernstein (there are a lot of those) are also unhappy about NIST clowning up FOIA.
You are in a deeply weird and broken place if you think you can divide the world into "people who take what Daniel Bernstein says on faith" and "people who trust NIST". I don't know if you're in that place! But some people on this thread clearly are.
15 replies →