Mike wrote: "Faustine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >Adam wrote: >On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: >| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is >| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also >| pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, >| terrorist-grade, etc. >>I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. > >And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are >willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their >betas to the NSA, you never will. > >Holy faulty logic Batman! This has to be one of the more doofy things >I've heard. It's right up there with the EMI Grounding Strap thread. >What're you going to do, sell a product in CompUSA with instructions to >the cashiers that the NSA is not allowed to buy it? If the NSA is >willing to pay for some software that's great. They've got as much right >to buy it as anyone else. True, of course they do. "Technology is morally neutral," sure, whatever. Yay capitalism. I still think handing over your security product beta on a silver platter in exchange for a nice fat government contract is a stupid, stupid idea. >As long as they obey the law! and don't >reverse engineer it, let them share in financing further development. Do you really think that anyone would have the slightest qualm about reverse engineering a product like this when "national security interests" are at stake? >I would find it more relevant to know which commercial product designs >have been influenced by which non-commercial agencies. Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are fairly bleak. >oy g'vay ( sp? ) close enough. ;) ~Faustine.
