| Description | Link |
|---|---|
| |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220806185849/https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1555991660609187841 |
| |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220806221528/https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1555992215213641728 |
| |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220806174800/https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1555647382108327937 |
| |
https://web.archive.org/web/20220805203734/https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1555653928028475394 |
| Bernstein’s response to accusations by Henry de Valence | https://web.archive.org/web/20220705222334/https://eindhoven.cr.yp.to/false-statements-by-henry-de-valence.txt |
Seems to be adapting to the knowledge that his serial behaviour is being documented in an effective manner, so has withheld specific identifiers to interfere with that process, but in this case is in fact referring to D.J. Bernstein regarding Bernstein’s declaration of intent to file a FOIA request regarding his suspicion of government overreach towards backdoors being placed in certain emergent technologies.
In this instance of defamation, Matthew Garrett makes the claim:
If someone hosts a rapist in their lab, supports another rapist’s lawsuit, and then writes 5000 words just asking questions about whether maybe some independent researchers were bribed by the US government to backdoor their algorithms, maybe don’t uncritically take their side
To break the statement down, he is stating that scrutiny should be applied to agreeing with the FOIA request because:
In response to questions to identify the two rapists Garret mentions:
<mjg59_> Dan, who as we have established knows how to find a lawyer, is free to sue me if he thinks I’m lying
To date, Matthew Garrett refuses to name these two anonymous rapists that he accuses Bernstein of supporting and once again is relying on ambiguity and technicalities in the legal system to avoid facing the damaging nature of his words.
For anyone following his associations,