Pseudonym (was Re: what is killing PKI?)
No such Client
nosuchclient at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 23:53:57 CEST 2012
As much as I am trying to put this dog to rest, allow me to (politely)
> Odd that only you seemed to find Rob's remarks offensive, and exceedingly at
I was not the only one to find them offensive. The only one brave enough
to address the fact, and careless enough to do so knowingly making me
the bad guy, and callous enough to reciprocate rudeness in the
intentional knowledge that it would influence my reputation. And trust
tends to go along with reputation. Your name, whether real or imagined,
is still what commands respect or sneers.
> But then again, only you stooped to argumentum ad hominem.
> Peter Segment
> was not under attack,only the ideas he presented were being challenged.
Perhaps he was not personally under attack, however the way that you
speak to people (see respect) matters. Even if Mr.Hansen had evidence,
that is no excuse to rudely dismiss another in such a way that brings
them public shame and puts Mr.Segment in a fight/flight position. (if
peter had responded to defend his name (see respect), it may have led to
animosity. If he did not, he may be seen as weak, or conceding the
"high-ground" to Mr. Hansen. In the course of human events, conflicts
have started for far less. Since Mr. Segment did not respond, no one
else (at least publically) knows of his position regarding the matter.
However just because one has evidence does not mean you can speak to
anyone however ye like and claim that the evidence gives you the right
to ignore the emotional side of people. Trust, respect, and the other
social values are at the root of it, emotionally-based. As rational as
people may try to appear, even they are driven by emotions at their
core. That should not be undermined. That is the principle which
Mr.Hansen dismissively ignored for Mr.Segment, and why I (a third
party, who has no knowledge, relationship, nor affiliation with
Mr.Segment in any way) could justify speaking to Mr. Hansen in such a way.
> great for one to hypothesize a new idea, but with no data for support and by
> disagreeing with a couple decades of peer-reviewed research, then yes it's not
> going to be taken very seriously especially by those with academic and/or
> professional experience in the field.
Of course not. However even if it is not taken seriously, notification
of such could surely be done in a more polite way? If everyone else in
effect states their opinion,as many postings lack the peer-reviewed
research, why should Mr.Segment be arbitrarily held to a higher
standard when it suits one person?
I will quote a few passages, all which oddly enough are lacking the
evidence coming from a "formal usability study, peer-reviewed journal"
to reinforce my point Mr.Clizbe.
/"The problem you are talking about is routine. I faced it when I was the
chief sysadmin for a law firm and deployed GnuPG to 150+ desktops.
Pretty much anyone who has ever deployed GnuPG and/or PGP has faced it.
Solutions to this problem exist, are well-known, and pretty thoroughly
"Deploying PKI is nowhere near as big of a problem as convincing people"
"I think the other 99% deserve better."
"And if you draw the line anywhere in
between, then you're adopting my position but just quibbling over
precisely where you want the line to be drawn."
" (T)hat PKI adds benefit to their lives."/
Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are lacking, however I fail to
see any of the above quotes (all authored oddly enough by Mr. Hansen) as
having any of the evidence that he (seemingly arbitrarily) prosecutes
Mr.Segment for failing to provide. Is this a valid evidence of hypocrisy?
I will allow the fellow readers of the thread to join together in
peerage to review such evidence for themselves.
> Trying to discount a research paper because of its age (when later papers
> reach substantially the same conclusions) is akin to want to toss legal
> precedent because the case was decided 100 years ago.
Agreed. How is this relevant to the point of mutual respect or even the
> Your use of a pseudonym does not devalue your words.
I consider myself fortunate that you Sir, are of an open mind.
> Your use of personal
> attack does.
Ah yes now I understand!, Without evidence, I am stating opinions and
"pet theories" , however with evidence, I can legitimately speak to
anyone as dismissively as I please and call this an "academic exchange
of ideas!." (which is strictly impersonal, as evidence is what matters
> Anonymity used in that fashion reminds me of SlashDot's
> "Anonymous Coward" moniker. You were rude to Rob. I do not know how many
> others on the list also found your behavior rude.
Well, how about if i (hypothetically) told you that :
/" I really don't care what your pet theory
is until such time as you get out into the field, do a formal usability
study, write up the results and get them accepted to a peer-reviewed
journal. Once you do that, I will be happy to read your paper, give it
due weight, and refer other people to it." /
Quite a rude response to your words no? Or is this acceptable form of
discourse in the academic realm?
Given what you have stated in your email, saying that to you is *not*
rude (when Mr.Hansen says it) .
Can you please reference me to the appropiate peer-review journal as
evidence of your "Anonymous Coward" theory? You see without the "data to
support" , your "pet theory"
Unsupported assertions regarding your opinions about the likeness of my
name to slashdot "Anonymous Cowards" simply cannot be "taken very
Furthermore, the general public need not know my name. That is for
matters which concern myself and others who I work with, not you all. It
has nothing to do with cowardice. My reputation is assessed under the
name " no such client" , same as if it was "John J Joyce" "Fei Zhang" or
"Nils Lindström" .. That is besides the point (I fear you are attacking
my name (me) and not the ideas I am presenting sir! ) ..
>> (Full Disclosure: I enjoyed it. Sometimes people learn with a taste of
>> their own medicine.. ) So it is understandable if Mr. Hansen does not
>> hold me in the highest regard. However that is between us. Others here
>> should promote mutual respect of all members, and not selectively attack
>> new members, while allowing the ¨old guard¨ to speak as they like to
>> other members with impunity.
> Your glee says even more about you than just the words you used to attack Rob.
It says that I am honest, direct, and that I enjoy.. justified
Revenge is a pleasure enjoyed by many, in ways big and small. I am just
honest enough with myself and the public to admit it. You would not be
emailing this msg, if you were not trying to exact a form of social
revenge against me attacking Mr.Hansen. Ah yes, I need evidence or else
this is just an opinion.. Silly me, I almost forgot.
*re·venged*, *re·veng·ing*, *re·veng·es*
*1. * To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
*2. * To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
*1. * The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
*2. * Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
*3. * A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
*4. * An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a
So given the above definition, (I will allow the peerage here to look up
the word "retaliation" themselves) I sought to "avenge" Mr.Hansens
disparaging post of Mr.Segment, Mr.Hansen has been revenging me for
days regarding this, and you are the one who is currently revenging me
at the moment, on behalf of Mr. Hansens post.
Or is the evidence of this account inaccurate, unfounded, or otherwise
> BTW, saying in your attack that Robert J. Hansen and Robert P. Hanssen werethe same name also adds to your level of credibility.
A. I used that to both mock and discredit him (when one is an asshole,
they don't play fair! )
B. Your point is not relevant to the overall point, you are not just
saying in effect "well you did x, y , and z (blah)" as a form of
C. Did you ever stop to consider that I (admittedly) attacked Mr. Hansen
out of revenge, and that I obviously don't *care* what my credibility
was / is as far as he is concerned? I care about things far more
important than credibility. However we are far from the realm of crypto
and this current sub-topic is irrelevant to the topic at hand Mr.Clizbe.
> I guess you were also
> unaware that Rob has pointed this similar name thing out several times both
> here and on other crypto lists.
I was unaware, unsurprised, and your point is...... ?
> Rude as it was, it was also entertaining.
rude yes, and I am glad that you found it entertaining.
> found the example of "sending 30 Israeli academics to Iran" to be quite
> entertaining in its naïveté.
> I imagine details like lawfully securing visas or
> passing Customs were forgotten in haste to insult.
who said anything about sending 30 (thirty) academics to Iran getting
I find your assumptions that everything must be legal , naive and narrow
Or perhaps you did not consider that there are ways of
infiltrating/exfiltrating people beyond national borders that are not
conventional (we wont speak to the legality of things, as It would be
legal under Israeli law if they chose to undertake such operations, and
clearly frowned upon by the Iranians/Persians. Legality is a subjective
concept. With something called legal precedent.. (a form of evidence
which you lack here. But surely you knew that).
I howl in laughter as in your "haste to insult" , you clearly have
failed to consider
I thank you for more evidence of your naïveté. Visas, and customs.. haha..
> This forum has always provided mutual respect to posters, but ideas are ideas,
> they are not people.
Oh? So if ideas are what matters, and not the people, then I can
certainly understand the logic behind condoning/defending Mr.Hansen's
treatment of Mr.Segment. I don't quite understand all the tears shed
over how I have "been rude" , "attacked" , or "offended" Mr. Hansen.
Clearly that does not matter, as I am simply presenting an idea.
> The "Old Guard," as you describe us, tend to be rather
> patient with new members often patiently re-answering frequently asked
> questions and pointing to other sources of information.
Yes, with this exhausive (both to read, and reply to) email, I concede
that a certain patience (on both sides) has been displayed Mr. Clizbe.
> I've seen much worse
> behavior on some other lists.
I will not question that, however I fail to see your evidence of this?
(Isn't nice being treated like this is it) . Seriously, I am here to be
polite, and focus on crypto. The emotions, egos, drama, and bullshit
really detracts from the point.
> I doubt Rob gives you or your words much thought or regard.
Once again, I could care less what Rob thinks of me or others. Reading (
he really does have a rather high opinion of himself doesn't he?
> He and I are both
> experienced of much more vociferously phrased attacks from academic realms
> than his corrections on why people do not avail themselves of crypto.
That's great. Without evidence to support your claims, nor relevance to
this point, these words are deemed unfounded, and consequently... what
is your point? (to gather sympathy? )
> typically in those cases we've experienced, the attacker is buying the second
> pitcher of beer later in the day (depends on whether he has tenure).
Ah.. Your interest is in the beer! Fair enough Mr. Clizbe, thank you for
stating your interest.
> We are
> taught to attack and challenge _ideas_ especially new or unproven ones. It's
> how weaknesses or fallacies in a theory are exposed. It's the way peer-review
> works. It's the way science works.
I understand that. However dealing with people who all come from
different backgrounds, and obviously have different levels of
experience, knowledge, opinions, and even coherence to impart,
politeness still should help. Peer review works quite well. I use it
often in my line of work. However being impolite creates more personal
problems (like your email, and Mr. Hansen's, as well as the drama that
has been started around all of this, including the pseudonymn debate,
and who I am, and my credibility) which all... Are besides the point of
.. "What is killing PKI".. That is the true casualty of this entire
weeklong exchange. The point of the thread. So with that, I want it to
be known that I am officially tired of this back/forth exchange about
the entire affair, as it would not have happened in the first place if
Mr. Hansen had exercised more forethought and discretion in the delivery
of his words. People matter. As do ideas. You can't have trust without
respect, and respect without politeness. Most here understand how
important trust is in the world (whether technical, social, physical,
legal, etc) , it is still important. Politeness is a necessary
component inherently tied to human interaction. So I have no
ill-feelings towards you Mr.Clizbe, nor Mr. Hansen, nor anyone else. I
am focused on the possibilities of tech, not the people. I want to end
this long-winded drama which has been wasting everyone's time, and has
not had a damn bit of relevance to "What is killing PKI" .. We have
killed the topic however that much. And for that, I apologize for the
part I played in that, and I look forward to splitting a few beers with
all parties involved as a token of peace(not sure where in the world ye
all are) . Thank you for your response Mr.Clizbe, and you were quite
thorough. I like that, even if I did not (obviously) agree with your
points (or at least most of them) . For anyone else who wishes to state
an opinion on this affair, please email me directly, and keep it out of
We have to get back to the point people.. What is killing PKI?
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users