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 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
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
>> 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, a
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 f
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 mon
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).
> Unfo
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 defi
> 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 tru
- 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 ge
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 sur
12 matches
Mail list logo
