I got curious about this issue, and did a little digging into what's
going on here. It turns out that the FCC is looking into this problem at
EPIC's request.
EPIC filed a petition for rulemaking on this subject with the FCC -
which went out for public comment at the end of the year. The petition
i
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:34, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html
>
> Quite disturbing.
More disturbing than even the people at Chicago Sun Times realize
apparently. ;) Hope no-one was sniffing their email.
'It was as simple as e-mailing the tele
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>
>The Chicago Sun Times reports that, for the right price, you can buy
>just about anyone's cell phone records:
>
>http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html
>
>Quite disturbing.
Yes, but it's also bad reporting -- the new
The Chicago Sun Times reports that, for the right price, you can buy
just about anyone's cell phone records:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html
Quite disturbing.
Perry
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Un
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Laurie writes:
>> Bill Frantz wrote:
>>> On 12/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Laurie) wrote:
>>>
I don't see why not - the technical details actually matter. Since the
servers will all share a socket, on any normal architectur
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Laurie writes:
>Bill Frantz wrote:
>> On 12/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Laurie) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see why not - the technical details actually matter. Since the
>>> servers will all share a socket, on any normal architecture, they'll all
>>> have access to
Bill Frantz wrote:
> On 12/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Laurie) wrote:
>
>> I don't see why not - the technical details actually matter. Since the
>> servers will all share a socket, on any normal architecture, they'll all
>> have access to everyone's private keys. So, what is gained by having
>>
