> >Now that you bring up this Godfrey matter I can see the similarities.
>
> Yes, but this is the Internet, and with both you and Phil's
> longstanding reputations, it's easy to discount ridiculous hyperbole.
> I doubt anyone take Phill seriously enough that you'd have any case.
> I must confe
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:33:35AM -0400, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
> If anyone on this list has received an "anonymous" diskette in the mail
> recently (as I just did), would you please contact me *off list*?
no, but be careful. You can do some very nasty things to disks (like put
s
> i've been thinking about this for a while, and i was wondering if it is
> possible to use some form of crypto to allow someone to read and append to a
> file, but force them to have a hard-to-crack private key if they ever want to
> delete from it?
>
> thanks for the help
> matt
You are a l
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 12:12:01PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
>
> When you read about losing laptops in Los Alamos (and London), you have
> to wonder: why don't those folks encrypt their drives? They
> are somehow thinking physical security is sufficient, and slacking
> off otherwise.
>
The lap
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 01:56:09PM -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote:
> It is also not at all impossible that the government could be pissed off by
> your anarchist tendencies and plant some encrypted stuff on your computer
> (like, for example, sending you encrypted mail with a forged "from" address
>
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
> [Normally, I detest 'me too' posts, but John needs to know that a lot of
> people
> back him up on this decision.]
Same here (hating "me toos"), it's so nice not to see people rolling over for
the govt. Thank you John. It's generally
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 03:03:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Wildly extrapolating from cpunk subscriber numbers we can say that there
> >are probably no more than 100 000 individuals worldwide that have sufficient
> >understanding of the internet technology to adequatly protect themselves
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:27:11AM -0400, Anonymous wrote:
> Functionality: posters send e-mail encrypted with the (single) server's key.
> Server decrypts, then encrypts with each recipient's key as it
> explodes the mail.
Sounds a little pointless. I guess it must be a closed list otherwise peo
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 07:12:52PM -0400, David Marshall wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Lackey) writes:
>
> > Given the low percentage of "normal user" PGP keys which are anything
> > but self-signed, would people actually use/give-appropriate-trust to
> > a service which signed PGP keys belong
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:12:27PM -0400, Bill Stewart wrote:
> Servers are the price of scalability.
Correction - servers are the price of *easy* scalability. See Freenet for an
example of self-organizing networks that are efficient. But it isn't easy,
self-org networks are complex and subtle be
There is an Observer artical at:
http://www.observer.co.uk//uk_news/story/0,6903,406191,00.html
The leaked report refered to is at: http://cryptome.org/ncis-carnivore.htm
Choate: There's no need to post the whole thing to the list now.
AGL
--
In an orderly world, there's always a place for t
Quotes from http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52094-2000Dec26.html
"Federal regulators have ruled that the major networks should have identified the
White House as a sponsor of programs such as "The Practice," "The Drew Carey Show" and
"America's Most Wanted" when their plots included
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 12:21:38AM -0500, An Metet wrote:
> Amazon.com, the worldÕs largest online retailer, relies heavily on its marketing
>database to ÒpersonaliseÓ its interactions with its 20m customers. Loyal customers
>swear by AmazonÕs uncanny ability to recommend genuinely useful purcha
13 matches
Mail list logo
