Comment by tptacek
3 years ago
No part of what I said had anything to do with what NSA would or wouldn't attempt to do.
If you don't understand what I wrote, ask questions. What you did instead was leap to stupid conclusions.
3 years ago
No part of what I said had anything to do with what NSA would or wouldn't attempt to do.
If you don't understand what I wrote, ask questions. What you did instead was leap to stupid conclusions.
You used obscure language to make yourself look smart and deal with the resulting confusion by calling people stupid instead of clarifying what was said. Please get your ego in order.
The person is saying one thing then denying saying that thing and being a jerk about it. Either a bot or someone with a broken thesaurus. Glad you pointed it out because it’s ridiculous/risible.
That person is very well known in this community, and in other communities as well.
They are also known for making very specific arguments that people misinterpret and fight over, but the actual intent and literal meaning of the statements is most often correct (IMO).
Whether this is a byproduct of trying to be exacting in the language used that tends to cause people interpretive problems or a specific tactic to expose those that are a combination of careless with their reading and willing to make assumptions rather than ask questions is unknown to me, but that doesn't change how it tends to play out, from my perspective.
In this case, I'll throw you a bone and restate his position as I understand it.
NIST ran the competition in question in a way such that all the judges referred each other, and all are very well known in the cryptographic field, and the suggestion by someone with more common game that they could be bribes in this manner (note not that the NSA would not attempt it, but the implication they would succeed with the people in question) is extremely unlikely, and that DJB would suggest as much knowing his fame may matter to people more than the facts of who these people are, is problematic.
7 replies →
He said bribed, which quite explicitly means payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment. Coerced is not bribed. Period.
a risible distinction- a cursory reading of the article will reveal that bribery was only brought forth as an example of coercion
7 replies →