[Cryptography] How to prove Wikileaks' emails aren't altered

Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Tue Nov 1 19:08:57 EDT 2016

On 10/30/2016 02:16 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Ray Dillinger <bear at sonic.net> wrote:

>> Yes, I was aware.  And yes, when I let people know, they are
>> indeed shocked and offended.

> When I told people about it last week, the response was "No, they don't.
> That would be illegal. That's just crazy conspiracy talk."

If they don't believe you you're probably not charging them
enough money.

I mean, yes, having the notebook of source material for the
things you say helps, and sometimes they ask to see sources.
But honestly?  People usually decide to believe what you're
telling them for no reason other than knowing that you get
paid a lot of money to tell people about these things.

It seems dirty, like exploiting one bug in order to fix another,
but it's a bug in people's brain software that you can exploit
to get them to believe things that are actually true.

Or which certain candidates can exploit to get voters to believe
things that are actually false....

Grrf.  Without going into partisanship, I encourage everyone who
is eligible to vote in the US to please do so.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20161101/0898743e/attachment.sig>

More information about the cryptography mailing list