Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

2003-08-30 Thread Bill Frantz
The Java Anonymous Proxy (JAP) service, your local library, and you, among others need to develop a response should you be served with an order (court or otherwise) to produce information which includes the requirement that you keep the order secret. There are a large number of responses one

Re: traffix analysis

2003-08-30 Thread Morlock Elloi
as a solid dish. (The uwaves see the screen as solid, however.) With that much gain (ie directionality) wind could mess with your (albeit brief) connection. This one has 30 degree coverage and is perfect for connecting to consumer APs up to a mile:

Re: DoS of spam blackhole lists

2003-08-30 Thread John Kozubik
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Andrew Thomas wrote: Considering that it appears that spammers are now resorting to DoS'ing sites that host spam lists, wouldn't now be a good time to investigate the possibilities of a distributed, or at least, load balanced blacklist provider? That's an interesting

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

2003-08-30 Thread Steve Schear
At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least legally risky of the options. The fact that you will stop notification should be included in your terms of service. All

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

2003-08-30 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand personal knowledge of this... When the various plastic-id carrying

Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

2003-08-30 Thread Tim May
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote: At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least legally risky of the options. The fact that you will stop