=01a0255p.06
~Aimee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Aimee Farr
> Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation
>
>
> --
> On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr w
On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving,
> it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100%
> conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where
> there is a corpus, there is a law
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of
> "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective
> chill" in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't
> interested.
With the DCMA and
Declan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
> > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator?
>
> Hahahahahaha.
That's the damn truth, isn't it?
> > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
> > > mention many related issue
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
> YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator?
Hahahahahaha.
> > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
> > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on
> > U.S.-based remaile
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:26:21PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> You are blithering. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what is
> being talked about. And instead of learning, you just blither.
Another good reference for Aimee would be, naturally, Applied
Cryptography. Also the recent MIT Press
