On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If only they worked. There was an interesting paper presented here
in Pittsburgh at the info hiding workshop this week that suggested
a way to strengthen the somewhat-suckful mixmaster network. (Of
That would be
A Reputation System To Increase
Declan wrote:
I rather like the idea of encrypting
the logs on the fly and shipping them
offshore. Your offshore partner will
be instructed to turn over the logs
only if you are not asking for them
under duress. (A reasonable protocol
can probably be worked out. Would a
court order
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 08:49:43PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Well, better than nothing. (Like I said in another article tonight,
the best is often the enemy of the good.) We knew even in 1992 that
remailers were a pale imitation of the DC Nets discussed a few
years earlier by Chaum and
At 11:22 PM -0400 4/28/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 06:32:08PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
None of the non-cryptographic methods are very resistant to legal,
technical, sniffing, and black bag attacks. And only multiply-chained
encrypted-at-each-stage messages, a la
Tim May wrote:
None of the non-cryptographic methods are very resistant to legal,
technical, sniffing, and black bag attacks. And only multiply-chained
encrypted-at-each-stage messages, a la remailers, are adequate for
high-value messages.
Those who've read it know that Jim Bamford's Body of
At 6:32 PM -0700 4/28/01, Tim May wrote:
(You see, the quick review process is much better than the method
you suggested re: economics, that people read the main textbooks.
People don't need to spend several months wading through
cryptography textbooks to come up to a level that is sufficient
At 2:24 PM -0500 4/28/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Reading the IMC gag order, Henson, the latest anonymous poster stuff, and
Tim et. al. beating my head in pavement
Since many forums don't allow for 'nymity, (or people just don't), what
about a protected/offshore self-destruct quicktopic-like
10 messages in a row from Choat on the 29th in the course of an hour and
not a single one held a pair of relevant bytes.
C'mon. Enough is enough.
Will someone at lne.com finally decide that he qualifies as spam and start
filtering? That simple act would improve the signal to noise ratio
On Sunday, April 29, 2001, at 07:41 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I think Matt is a bit too quick to conclude a court will charge the
operator with contempt and that the contempt charge will stick on
appeal. Obviously judges have a lot of discretion, but it doesn't seem
to me like the
i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites
or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with
a court order or search warrant, etc.'
as for the 'encrypt it' or
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:13:01AM -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites
or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with
a
Kevin wrote:
From recent experience, LE provides us
with an order to preserve certain logged
information. The order is in advance of
obtaining a search warrant...
What form do these orders take? Who, specifically, makes the order? What
authority is cited to back up the power to make such
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:40PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Kevin wrote:
From recent experience, LE provides us
with an order to preserve certain logged
information. The order is in advance of
obtaining a search warrant...
What form do these orders take? Who, specifically,
On Sunday, April 29, 2001, at 10:59 PM, Kevin L Prigge wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:40PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Kevin wrote:
From recent experience, LE provides us
with an order to preserve certain logged
information. The order is in advance of
obtaining a search warrant...
14 matches
Mail list logo
