Re: Freeh says DoS attacks require FBI access to plaintext
You found me out. I confess. Your interrogation and clever repartee was too much for my tortured conscience. I admit it: I am a statist, probably a communist, definitely an Enemy of the Cypherpunks, a defender of the status quo, a liberal, a leftist, and someone who likely tortures caterpillars in his spare time. -Declan
Re: Freeh says DoS attacks require FBI access to plaintext
Yeah, ok, now we know who is responsible for the attacks on the sites. Follow the money, and it's the Fedz themselves. Declan McCullagh wrote: > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34388,00.html > > [...] > > Repeating a long-standing theme, he said > data-scrambling encryption products > posed a real danger to police, who > needed access to descrambled > documents or communications. -- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos + ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\ \|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]all government would be opposed to what /\|/\ <--*--> we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/ /|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/ + v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ. http://www.sunder.net --- I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
Re: Freeh says DoS attacks require FBI access to plaintext
At 02:12 2/17/2000 -1000, Reese wrote: >Agreed, links to usual suspects such as the ACLU are in the 2nd and 3rd >tier,,, but were they all? Perhaps I parsed too quickly, I saw nothing of >the EFF, Cato, or et cetera. I'm not responsible for your slothfulness in following links. >sleep well, you Funny. -Declan
Re: Freeh says DoS attacks require FBI access to plaintext
Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Declan, I am impressed. This appears to be a beautific job of reporting >what happened, and what everyone said about it. Isn't that what a reporter is supposed to do? >Reviewing the article again, there was no comment on the obvious... If it was obvious why would he need to? You'd have to be some kind of moron not to make that connection. Regards, Matt- ** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **
Re: Freeh says DoS attacks require FBI access to plaintext
At 17:16 2/16/2000 -1000, Reese wrote: > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34388,00.html >Reviewing the article again, there was no comment on the obvious and >repeated unconstitutional affronts Freeh et al. wish to visit upon the >American populace, in the name of combating cyberterrorism, saving the >children, war on some drugs, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum Correct. I'm writing for an audience that has read a *lot* about that issue, and I linked to my previous articles with criticism from usual suspects like ACLU etc. And I didn't have that much time to work on it. So while I didn't put in the "civil liberties groups raise questions," I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either. >I suppose any horseman will do, eh? Well, yeah. Any horse in a storm, or something like that. -Declan
