[cryptography] basing conclusions on facts

Stephen Farrell stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Sun Jun 15 12:48:19 EDT 2014

On 15/06/14 16:34, David Adamson wrote:
> 2. The point that you are doing is also clearly understood: By
> nitpicking you are trying to clear the amoral actions of Certicom, Dan
> Brown and and Scott Vanstone.

You are completely wrong. But you'll believe that or not.

I am mainly pointing out that guilt-by-association is just as
wrong if done by the Internet community as if done by/for NSA/GCHQ.

And that by not bothering to pay attention to the evidence in
this case (which is all visible in many mail archives), iang
is doing his case, and IMO the good of the Internet, a disservice.

I have no interest in defending Certicom's IPR practices.


More information about the cryptography mailing list