Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A profound new insight.
>
>We still await some real insights from a real graduate student (!),
>beyond her saying that we don't know as much as she says she knows.
>
>BTW, I have removed the additional addresses ("David Honig"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Declan@Wel
At 10:32 PM 4/28/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>At 11:46 PM 4/28/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh 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 d
At 09:17 AM 4/30/01 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>I remember having lunch a while back with Loki and the topic of logs
>come up- He mentioned that his company fully and completely complies
>with warrants for all logs, especially easy to comply with since his
>company doesn't keep logs.
Imagin
At 01:04 PM 4/29/2001 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Right, in most circumstances you're not required to keep logs. But there
>>are some cases, albeit a fairly narrow subset, in which you'd want to
>>have log files that are available to you but not an
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 question is such a clear one if a system is set up in the proper
cypherpun
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh
> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:46 PM
> > To: Anonymous
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: layered deception
> >
> >
> >
> > I rather like the idea of
Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right, in most circumstances you're not required to keep logs. But
>there are some cases, albeit a fairly narrow subset, in which you'd
>want to have log files that are available to you but not an
>adversary using legal process.
>
>-Declan
Which wou
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Right, in most circumstances you're not required to keep logs. But there
>are some cases, albeit a fairly narrow subset, in which you'd want to have
>log files that are available to you but not an adversary using legal process.
>
>-Declan
If you
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 instruct you
to lie? If so, w
i like this idea, actually...
(fwd from IMC):
>
>``...Although the agents were concerned with only two posts, the court
>order demands "all user connections logs" for a 48-hour period, which
>would include individual IP addresses for every person who posted
>materials to or visited the IMC site d
Cullagh
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:46 PM
> To: Anonymous
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: layered deception
>
>
>
> 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 th
At 11:46 PM 4/28/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh 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 work
12 matches
Mail list logo
