I wrote in another thread:
framework to reasonably exist. Cypherpunkish technology will create
underground markets, anonymous distribution methods, and so on, and the
only way to enforce such regulations will be for the Feds/Mounties to take
drastic steps. (For instance, strong anonymity is an
Declan McCullagh wrote:
... Restricting strong
anonymity means key escrow.)
Perhaps I overstated my argument above. It seems to me that if the Feds
want to restrict strong anonymity, they have some choices:
the choices
Anything else?
Routinely monitor communications lines. Allow
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Steve Furlong wrote:
In general, look at what China is doing. Britain and Russia, too.
Britain is doing a lot less than you seem to think. The RIP act
has been passed, but to a rising chorus of protests from all sides,
including industry. Actual implementation of the bill
At 02:39 AM 10/8/00 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Require ISPs to get a license to operate. Terms can be set arbitrarily
high. (Bonus points if you make them pay for the monitoring hardware,
software, and governmental labor.)
Wasn't a "license to drive" on the "info superhighway" bandied about
--
At 03:33 PM 10/8/2000 -0400, David Honig wrote:
Wasn't a "license to drive" on the "info superhighway" bandied about
when the latter term was sickeningly popular?
Everything on the internet is a packet with a destination address and a
return address. To create a police state on the
At 04:30 PM 10/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
--
At 03:33 PM 10/8/2000 -0400, David Honig wrote:
Wasn't a "license to drive" on the "info superhighway" bandied about
when the latter term was sickeningly popular?
Everything on the internet is a packet with a destination address and a
return
At 03:33 PM 10/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
At 02:39 AM 10/8/00 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Require ISPs to get a license to operate. Terms can be set arbitrarily
high. (Bonus points if you make them pay for the monitoring hardware,
software, and governmental labor.)
Wasn't a "license to drive" on
