HOW THE NEW E-COMMERCE BILL COULD SEND JACK STRAW TO JAIL
At the bottom of this email you will find the text of a letter
sent to Home Secretary Jack Straw MP by Malcolm Hutty, a
volunteer from the e-campaign group STAND.org.uk
It's no ordinary letter.
--- begin forwarded text
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:20:44 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP: DoD selects vendors for public key infrastructure pilot
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source: Department of Defense
Anonymous says, (btw, I really wonder what's the point of having a technical
discussion incognito... I hope this is not for a really good/bad reason such as
you are living in some dark country),
Hmmm... sounds like you are saying that if you had an anonymous payment
system you could
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny Bravo) wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:43:55 GMT, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what if the Clinton Administration says that they will allow
128 bit encryption to be exported? It still requires government
licensing- that is, NSA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anonymous says, (btw, I really wonder what's the point of having a technical
discussion incognito... I hope this is not for a really good/bad reason such as
you are living in some dark country),
Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised. There are several really obvious
At 01:36 PM 9/26/99 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two reasons. First, as you say below, there is simply the reality of
there being multiple systems. Second, and more essential, there are some
important advantages e.g. in efficiency to non-anonymous payment mechanisms.
BTW,
Amir Herzberg writes:
(btw, I really wonder what's the point of having a technical discussion
incognito... I hope this is not for a really good/bad reason such as
you are living in some dark country)
Yes, regrettably many of us do live in a dark country. Public discussions
of cryptographic
