Dennis Glatting wrote:
> Perhaps at the Pittsburgh plenary we should discuss whether we want to
> move the London meeting elsewhere, least all of our lap tops be
> "scanned" and cryto keys surrendered.
Or maybe we should discuss it here, so as not to exclude people who can't
make it to Pittsburg
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Holdrege wr
ites:
>> >
>>I'm not sure what "sounds a bit overmuch" to you. Have a look at
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F15/150465.stm
>
>How is this different than looking in your bags for porn magazines or
>videotapes? How is look
Eric Brunner wrote:
>
> [from [EMAIL PROTECTED], (www.benton.org/News/)
> Communications-related Headlines for 7/19/2000
> ]
>
> BRITISH AUTHORITIES MAY GET WIDE POWER TO DECODE E-MAIL
Perhaps at the Pittsburgh plenary we should discuss whether we want to
move the London meeting elsewhere, lea
[from [EMAIL PROTECTED], (www.benton.org/News/)
Communications-related Headlines for 7/19/2000
]
BRITISH AUTHORITIES MAY GET WIDE POWER TO DECODE E-MAIL
Issue: Privacy/International
Britain may adopt a law making it the only Western democracy where the
government could require anyone using the I
ED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 3:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
Matt Holdrege wrote:
> >I'm not sure what "sounds a bit overmuch" to you. Have a look at
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F15/150465.stm
Matt Holdrege wrote:
> >I'm not sure what "sounds a bit overmuch" to you. Have a look at
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F15/150465.stm
>
> How is this different than looking in your bags for porn magazines or
> videotapes? How is looking at your stored email different t
Matt Holdrege writes:
> How is this different than looking in your bags for
> porn magazines or videotapes?
It's not. I take it that you don't mind having your bags searched? How
about your wallet? Where do you draw the line, or don't you draw one?
> How is looking at your stored email diffe
Matt Holdrege writes:
> There are loads of crazy laws in the U.S. and other
> countries. We citizens are grateful that the enforcement
> branch of the government chooses to ignore them unless
> provoked.
Some of us citizens prefer not to give the enforcement branch of the
government the opportun
At 02:45 PM 7/18/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt
>Holdrege wr
>ites:
> >At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> >>next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England
> >>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
> >>
> >>if
vin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matt Holdrege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com)
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Holdrege wr
ites:
>A
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Holdrege wr
ites:
>At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England
>>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
>>
>>if you turn up at customs with a laptop, you may be asked to show any
At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England
>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
>
>if you turn up at customs with a laptop, you may be asked to show any
>and all files on it to the nice chaps there. if someone ha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ll
oyd Wood typed:
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>
>>> yo udont know about RIP then
>>>
>>> if you visit the UK, and are asked to show any files on your computer,
>>> you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"
>>>
>>> that wil lbe deem
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:30:52 BST, Jon Crowcroft said:
> yo udont know about RIP then
I'm quite aware of RIP.
> if you visit the UK, and are asked to show any files on your computer,
> you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"
This is about session keys - Sendmail will do SSL connections (b
In message <008601bff09b$8b32e9b0$0a0a@contactdish>, Anthony Atkielski type
d:
>>> Well been British, we are to polite and would not like to make a fuss. :)
>>Yeah, the ones who liked to make a fuss went off and started their own
>>democracies centuries ago.
>>So the British really don
Jonathan Parkinson wrote:
> Well been British, we are to polite and would not like to make a fuss. :)
Yeah, the ones who liked to make a fuss went off and started their own
democracies centuries ago.
So the British really don't mind having their privacy compromised, then? I
hope Americans show
Well been British, we are to polite and would not like to make a fuss. :)
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 9:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> yo udont k
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> yo udont know about RIP then
>
> if you visit the UK, and are asked to show any files on your computer,
> you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"
>
> that wil lbe deemed evidence that you are witholding evidence and yo
> ucan go to jail jus for that.,. i.e. our new c
yo udont know about RIP then
if you visit the UK, and are asked to show any files on your computer,
you cannot claim you "cannot remember the key"
that wil lbe deemed evidence that you are witholding evidence and yo
ucan go to jail jus for that.,. i.e. our new crypto-fascist law takes
away the
At 12:33 PM 7/17/2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:37:47 PDT, Brian Lloyd said:
> > Personally, I satisfy my desire for privacy by using strong encryption
> > wherever possible. I sure hope I am not hurting any feelings at the FBI.
>
> From the Sendmail 8.11 Release notes:
>
At 12:15 PM 7/17/2000, David A. Higginbotham wrote:
>When is one oppressed such that fighting is appropriate? Where does one
>begin this fight should such a point be reached?
I will be happy to discuss my views on this with you but my feeling is that
it is not an appropriate topic of discussion
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:37:47 PDT, Brian Lloyd said:
> Personally, I satisfy my desire for privacy by using strong encryption
> wherever possible. I sure hope I am not hurting any feelings at the FBI.
>From the Sendmail 8.11 Release notes:
Support SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP (
Privacy eating software
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, David A. Higginbotham wrote:
> I can not disagree, however, where does the responsibility to ensure
liberty
> lay, and what is required to ensure said liberty? specifically, what may
be
> suggested that one do, assuming bearing arms is inap
> From: Lillian Komlossy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just when we thought it could not get more - well.. "complicated", someone
> sent me this article:
> http://ecommerce.internet.com/opinions/article/0,1467,3551_415491,00.html
> If there is any truth in this and it continues like this I wonder how man
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, David A. Higginbotham wrote:
> I can not disagree, however, where does the responsibility to ensure liberty
> lay, and what is required to ensure said liberty? specifically, what may be
> suggested that one do, assuming bearing arms is inappropriate, to ensure
> email privacy
ECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software
Hmmm, I think the federal government might have another opinion that topic,
re: Waco, etc., but this is far off the topic. It's an idyllic viewpoint,
though. But I'm afraid we're at the point in history where the p
in general?
-Original Message-
From: Book, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:45 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software
Hmmm, I think the federal government might have another opinion that topic,
re: Waco, e
ymoron. And, if Carnivore
isn't as clear an example of that as one needs, then one is probably wearing
rose-colored glasses.
-Original Message-
From: David A. Higginbotham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy
]
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
Phil Neumiller wrote:
> I like this idea! Yeah, if we can reclassify black boxes as munitions, as
> the NSA has
> done to encryption for years, then we can claim that we have the "right to
> bear black
> boxes".
...just like we have
Phil Neumiller wrote:
> I like this idea! Yeah, if we can reclassify black boxes as munitions, as
> the NSA has
> done to encryption for years, then we can claim that we have the "right to
> bear black
> boxes".
...just like we have the right to own nuclear weapons.
--
/===
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:43:29 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > How do you know "they" (whoever "they" might be) haven't?
>
> Because they don't know how. And we know that they don't know how because
> they are still setting up stupid things like Carnivore.
It has long been
> How do you know "they" (whoever "they" might be) haven't?
Because they don't know how. And we know that they don't know how because
they are still setting up stupid things like Carnivore.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Tim Salo wrote:
> > RADIUS logfiles provide lots of interesting information. They'll know your
> > dial-up habits, phone number, length of time connected etc. The FBI should
> > just start their own ISP.
>
> How do you know "they" (whoever "they" might be) haven't?
Ooh, the
-Original Message-
From: Steven Cotton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:14 AM
To: ietf
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> That, in turn, would likely require monitoring of the RADIUS traffic,
&g
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:13:35 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Steven Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > That, in turn, would likely require monitoring of the RADIUS traffic,
&
The 'saga' continues... Read Janet Reno's input in all this.
"Reno: Web 'Wiretap' Review Underway" by AP:
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?SITE=NYTRO&FRONTID=HOME
Looks like the feds are developing a real "love affair" for the electronic
mail.
"White House Is Retrieving E-Mails" by AP:
http://wire.ap.o
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> That, in turn, would likely require monitoring of the RADIUS traffic,
> which (if it were different from release to release) might have forced
> the downgrade.
RADIUS logfiles provide lots of interesting information. They'll know your
dial-up habi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Isenberg writes
:
> From today's Wall Street Journal
>(http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB963523417716552926.htm):
>
>One of the nation's largest Internet-service providers, Earthlink Inc., has
>refused to install a new Federal Bureau of Investigat
From today's Wall Street Journal
(http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB963523417716552926.htm):
One of the nation's largest Internet-service providers, Earthlink Inc., has
refused to install a new Federal Bureau of Investigation electronic
surveillance device on its network, saying t
email
servers, web, web cachce/proxy, napster server etc) points
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 12:03 PM
>>To: Anthony Atkielski
>>Cc: ietf
>>Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating sof
gt;
To: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
>
> In message <01dc01bfed78$0e7a55a0$0a0a@contactdish>, Anthony Atkielski
type
> d:
>
litre barrier.
'http://www.rip-off.co.uk/fuel.htm'
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 12:03 PM
To: Anthony Atkielski
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software
In message <01dc01bfed78$0e7a55a0$0a0
In message <01dc01bfed78$0e7a55a0$0a0a@contactdish>, Anthony Atkielski type
d:
>>I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a top-secret
>>black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide
>>a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a top-secret
> black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide
> a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox?
Because other people will know when they'
I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a top-secret
black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide
a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox?
- Original Message -
From: "Lillian Komlossy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
45 matches
Mail list logo
