[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes

James A. Donald jamesd at echeque.com
Sat Nov 20 04:41:44 EST 2010


On 2010-11-20 4:45 PM, Ian G wrote:
 > I think this is one thing that the courts can do. If it can
 > be narrowed down to something as simple as "are you using
 > MVQ?" then the question is simply popped.
 >
 > The reason this works is that neither side will lie on a
 > baldfaced issue. If they are found to be lying on something
 > as technical and solid as this (no matter the question of
 > how we would show that) then not only would the entire case
 > be compromised, but the lier would be likely punished.

But they lie all the time on matters perfectly solid, such as
when a mortgage was made, and who made it, and no
consequences follow. Psychiatric experts testify about their
examination of people they never bothered to meet - saves
time that way.  Everyone knows they are lying, and no one
calls them on it.

Secondly, the issue is not technical and solid.  It is
impossible to draw a clear border around an idea, to say what
is, and is not MQV, to say what is a trivial change, and what
is a meaningful difference.  It is impossible to have a
technical and solid patent issue, which is in practice
treated by courts and "experts" as a license to lie barefaced
about anything whatsoever.  Intellectual property rights are
like trying to fence off a patch of deep blue ocean - it
would be practical with continent sized patches of ocean, but
we are trying to fence around tiny and minutely precise
patches.

Members of the elite no longer get punished for perjury, and
bare faced perjury is absolutely routine.

Observe in the mortgage crisis, banks have repeatedly lied
before the court, have repeatedly been caught out, and been
"dismissed without prejudice" - that is to say, offered the
chance to withdraw their old testimony, and cook up some new
testimony.

Then they have come back with new forged documents, been
caught again, withdrawn them again, and been offered yet
another chance to have another go, and come back with yet
another set of forged documents with the obvious
impossibilities of the previous forged documents fixed up.

As in the Soviet Union before the fall, we are seeing a
collapse in discipline within the elite.  Bad conduct goes
unpunished.

Every so often we see a judge pushing back on perjury, for
example here is judge Schack, complaining of massive and
multiple perjury.
<http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/judge-schac
k-lights-up-robo-signer-erica-johnson-seck-onewest-bank-v-dra
yton-3/>

He complains, but he then dismisses the perjury based cases
"without prejudice"

Judge Schack rants indignantly that plaintiff committed
multiple and massive perjury, but the rant boils down to that
the defendant caught  the plaintiff lying, so, Judge Schack
is throwing out the plaintiff's case AND INVITING THE
PLAINTIFF TO COME BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER GO WITH FRESHLY
PERJURED DOCUMENTS AND HOPE THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT CATCH HIM
NEXT TIME.

Mortgage documents with impossible dates are simple black and
white perjury, and no bad consequences follow.  Whether an
algorithm is or is not MQV is not simple black and white
perjury - it is genuinely hard to draw a boundary around an
idea.  Is it still MQV if the code is generated by the boost
template library, and superficially does not look anything like
MQV as described in the patent?



More information about the cryptography mailing list