[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: [Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad idea because we don't know what it will do
- Subject: Fwd: [Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad idea because we don't know what it will do
- From: g2s at riseup.net (Razer)
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:41:57 -0800
- In-reply-to: <CAD2Ti29Ht4FhhgiCsEKnQirYaGHvrKQA6N4ocGYw=YQxPqe_-w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAD2Ti29Ht4FhhgiCsEKnQirYaGHvrKQA6N4ocGYw=YQxPqe_-w@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/26/2017 06:20 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com>
> Date: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad
> idea because we don't know what it will do
> To: Ian G <iang at iang.org>
> Cc: cryptography at metzdowd.com
>
>
> At 07:26 AM 2/25/2017, Ian G wrote:
>> Bruce Schneier has recently published an impassioned plea for a United States Federal Internet Security Agency, which would likely gain control of civilian cryptography, among many other munitions. The essay is impassioned, it is much longer than his normal 2 pagers, which signals something - belief, preparedness, foundation?
>>
>> http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/the-internet-of-things-dangerous-future-bruce-schneier.html
>>
I saw this go by on my rss scroll the other day and I thought, as
Mirimir said, "He's lost it".
Rr