On 10/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Klimov) wrote:
>Since the problem we are trying to solve is to prevent '''automated''' [1]
>vandalism, I guess the only solution is to use some Turing-test
>system, for example, recognition of the number on an image. In fact,
>this test only needed on the u
On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
For now. But, as has been asked before by people I used to consider
paranoid, how long before the US government considers a PGP keyring or
an encrypted partition to be prima facie evidence of criminalty?
This has already happened, albeit in a
It seems quite a jump for Mark Rasch to go from:
>the U.S. law makes it a crime to either manufacture or possess
>any device if you have a reason to know that it is, "primarily
>useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire,
>oral, or electronic communications."
to:
>Software
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Matt Crawford wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2005, at 18:32, Jason Holt wrote:
> > Of course, you can put anything you want in the cert, since the
> > servers know that my CA only certifies 1 bit of data about users
> > (namely, that they only get one cert per scarce resource).
>
> "One
