On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:25:25AM -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
How
about a publishing bot that creates a current and accessible db of randomly
selected recent emails crossing the Internet alphabetized by sender name
and email address? My guess is that if the scoundrels supplying the data
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:25:25AM -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
How
about a publishing bot that creates a current and accessible db of randomly
selected recent emails crossing the Internet alphabetized by sender name
and email address? My guess is that if the scoundrels supplying the data
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't think so.
Mr Robinson: we understand the Bill of Rights applies to
some unsavory types too. Do you think
David Howe wrote:
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:48 PM, Chris Ball
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
Another point is that ``normal'' constables aren't able to action the
request; they have to be approved by the Chief Constable of a police
force, or the head of a relevant Government
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't think so.
Mr Robinson: we understand the Bill of Rights applies to
some unsavory types too. Do you think
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't think so.
People using it should
- Original Message -
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: A secure government
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole
No, the various provisions of the Constitution, flawed though it is,
make it clear that there is no prove that you are not guilty
provision (unless you're a Jap, or the government wants your land, or
someone says that you are disrespectful of colored people).
Unfortuately, this is not true in
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:21 AM, Pete Capelli
Then which one of these groups does the federal government fall
under, when they use crypto? In the feds opinion, of course. Or do
they believe that their use of crypto is the only wholesome one?
Terrorism of course, using their own
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:48 PM, Chris Ball
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
Another point is that ``normal'' constables aren't able to action the
request; they have to be approved by the Chief Constable of a police
force, or the head of a relevant Government department. The full text
David Howe wrote:
No, the various provisions of the Constitution, flawed though it is,
make it clear that there is no prove that you are not guilty
provision (unless you're a Jap, or the government wants your land, or
someone says that you are disrespectful of colored people).
Unfortuately,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:03:07AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
I thought everyone knew that .mil and .gov sites are on the public side
of the Net. Most sensitive sites are forbidden to have a direct
connection to the public Net.
True. What's more, when I wrote about this last (a few weeks or
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:44 PM, Peter Fairbrother
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
David Howe wrote:
a) it's not law yet, and may never become law. It's an Act of
Parliament, but it's two-and-a-bit years old and still isn't in
force. No signs of that happening either, except a few
On 6 Feb 2003, Peter Fairbrother [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Unfortuately, this is not true in the UK - the penalty for
non-decryption of encrypted files on request by an LEA (even
if you don't have the key!) is a jail term.
b) Plod would have to prove you have the key, and refused
At 12:03 AM 2/6/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't think so.
People using it should
No, the various provisions of the Constitution, flawed though it is,
make it clear that there is no prove that you are not guilty
provision (unless you're a Jap, or the government wants your land, or
someone says that you are disrespectful of colored people).
Unfortuately, this is not true in
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:21 AM, Pete Capelli
Then which one of these groups does the federal government fall
under, when they use crypto? In the feds opinion, of course. Or do
they believe that their use of crypto is the only wholesome one?
Terrorism of course, using their own
- Original Message -
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: A secure government
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole
David Howe wrote:
No, the various provisions of the Constitution, flawed though it is,
make it clear that there is no prove that you are not guilty
provision (unless you're a Jap, or the government wants your land, or
someone says that you are disrespectful of colored people).
Unfortuately,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:03:07AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
I thought everyone knew that .mil and .gov sites are on the public side
of the Net. Most sensitive sites are forbidden to have a direct
connection to the public Net.
True. What's more, when I wrote about this last (a few weeks or
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:44 PM, Peter Fairbrother
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
David Howe wrote:
a) it's not law yet, and may never become law. It's an Act of
Parliament, but it's two-and-a-bit years old and still isn't in
force. No signs of that happening either, except a few
At 12:03 AM 2/6/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 01:23 PM, W H Robinson wrote:
The view I get fed all the time is that crypto is, on the whole, in
the hands of
the terrorists, the anti-patriots, the paedophiles, et al.
Correct.
That it is a bad
thing.
We don't
at Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:48 PM, Chris Ball
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
Another point is that ``normal'' constables aren't able to action the
request; they have to be approved by the Chief Constable of a police
force, or the head of a relevant Government department. The full text
Removal of sensitive information, locking down of websites, securing otherwise
accessible points of data. The .gov and .mil talk of
cyber-homeland-defense-strategy blah doesn't make much sense, at least not from
the admittedly media-derived POV I get. In amongst the proposals for screening
25 matches
Mail list logo
