At 01:11 PM 8/29/00 +0200, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
are you required to provide your private keys to an enemy (e.g. someone
who is sueing you) ?
..
I expect 95% or more of all encryption is done at the transport
layer, i.e., for transmission. Most peoplee, I surmise, keep their
Tim May wrote:
are you required to provide your private keys to an enemy (e.g. someone
who is sueing you) ?
The lawyers and lawyer larvae can comment better than I can. I
believe the answer is "yes, documents must be in usable form by your
ex-wife's lawyers," for example. This probably
At 12:09 PM +0200 8/28/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
Who uses crypto on a regular basis are those for whom the risks of
getting caught with certain material or certain thoughts are nonzero,
and for whom the penalties are significant. The usual examples:
freedom fighters plotting to
Tim May wrote:
Who uses crypto on a regular basis are those for whom the risks of
getting caught with certain material or certain thoughts are nonzero,
and for whom the penalties are significant. The usual examples:
freedom fighters plotting to blow up government buildings, child
Mr. May:
someone:
(While I don't think it is possible, I'm eager to hear ideas on how an
anonymous physical gathering could be planned and executed with the
public in attendance, while preserving the anonymity of the organizers.
Venue should be irrelevant, because all the attendees should be able
Fact is, "ordinary people" are not in any significant danger of
having their e-mail or files intercepted and read by "ripoff
artists, criminals, and spies." Next-door neighbors and other
non-governmental entities rarely have access to packet sniffers,
Carnivore-type intercept systems, or
"Tim" == Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Who uses crypto on a regular basis are those for whom the risks
Tim of getting caught with certain material or certain thoughts are
Tim nonzero, and for whom the penalties are significant.
I don't know how often this is true, but it's
At 12:25 PM -0700 8/24/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote:
Having Cypherpunks meetings inside the belly of the beast may strike
some as a great irony, but it was what Mike the Computer would call a
"funny once."
I strongly, strongly urge Cypherpunks to "just say no" to
Sassaman said:
Please explain to me how you could have a public gathering of anonymous
individuals. I don't think that it is possible to do what is being
proposed: plan, anonymously, a gathering of people organized on the
Internet and conducted in physical space. Do this in such a way that no
Tim, do you think that rubbing shoulders with police is too high price
to pay for getting, say, hundred people to use crypto ?
Of course.
Who the fuck cares, or should care, if 100 of the sheeple start using
crypto? What are we, bleeding heart altruists?
Tim, what did you do lately ? I've
At 11:00 AM -0700 8/24/00, Anonymous wrote:
Tim, what did you do lately ? I've been following this list
for several years now, and apart from "needs killing" kind
of rant I've never seen anything else from you.
And what I've seen from "Anonymous," at least your probable instance
of it, is
Straight Ray rote:
Mister Tim,
I have to say I don't agree with you. I don't see the Cypherpunks
list as an association of criminals. I don't have a problem with
the idea of teaching ordinary people to use crypto to protect
themselves from ripoff artists, criminals, and spies. I see the
I'm available to speak. I just have to wonder if the sheeple will care
enough to make this worth while... but I am willing to try.
Good.
BTW, it just occurred to me that logistics of anonymous organizing
of meatspace events are quite peculiar.
I could sign my posts (and later on say: "*I* get
13 matches
Mail list logo
