Re: moving Crypto?

Why do you say it's time to move the conference? AFAIK, it's ALWAYS been in SB. Too bad I can't make it this year :( -derek Richard Schroeppel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's time to consider moving the annual Crypto conference out of > Santa Barbara. The obvious places are Vancouver, Tor

Re: moving Crypto?

At 1:13 PM -0700 on 7/31/01, Richard Schroeppel wrote: > It's time to consider moving the annual Crypto conference out of > Santa Barbara. The obvious places are Vancouver, Toronto, or > Mexico. I know zilch about these places as conference venues. > Could someone knowledgable summarize the re

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote: > There are probably enough "cryptography researchers" out there that even a > large vendor won't feel tempted to harass them all proactively. All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also helps if you can get

Re: Company Awarded Patent for "Digital Tickets" (was Re: GigaLaw.com Daily News, July 30, 2001)

On 31 Jul 2001, Derek Atkins wrote: > This also looks very similar to my Master's Thesis, where I even use > the term "digital ticket"! Sheesh. It also sounds a lot like Kerberos. > Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I discuss this in both editiions of _Digital Cash_. I wonder if

moving Crypto?

It's time to consider moving the annual Crypto conference out of Santa Barbara. The obvious places are Vancouver, Toronto, or Mexico. I know zilch about these places as conference venues. Could someone knowledgable summarize the relative merits? Rich Schroeppel [EMAIL PROTECTED] -

Re: GESG Identity-Based Public Key Cryptography (ID-PKC)

M Taylor wrote: > The UK Communications-Electronics Security Group (CESG), the "defensive" > arm of the GCHQ, have published details about another PKC concept, > identity-based PKC, where every user's public key are predetermined by an > unique identifier, such as email address. It does use a(/t

RE: Company Awarded Patent for "Digital Tickets" (was Re:GigaLaw.com Daily News, July 30, 2001)

--- begin forwarded text From: Somebody To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Company Awarded Patent for "Digital Tickets" (was Re: GigaLaw.com Daily News, July 30, 2001) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:18:41 -0400 If you are aware of prior art on a patent that issues you can send

Re: Company Awarded Patent for "Digital Tickets" (was Re: GigaLaw.com Daily News, July 30, 2001)

This also looks very similar to my Master's Thesis, where I even use the term "digital ticket"! Sheesh. -derek Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I discuss this in both editiions of _Digital Cash_. I wonder if this > is prior art that reads against the patent. > > -Peter --

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

At 01:13 PM 7/27/2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research, >and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just >that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission >is really an invitation to harrass

GESG Identity-Based Public Key Cryptography (ID-PKC)

The UK Communications-Electronics Security Group (CESG), the "defensive" arm of the GCHQ, have published details about another PKC concept, identity-based PKC, where every user's public key are predetermined by an unique identifier, such as email address. It does use a(/two) trusted server(s), bu

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh writes: > >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my > >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption > >research. You can argue fairly persuasively t

Re: perl OpenPGP posted at CPAN

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Paul Harrison wrote: > Benjamin Trott has posted > the Crypt::OpenPGP module (v0.11) at CPAN: > > > > because "Of *course* the world needed a pure-Perl PGP > implementation." > > Accordin