While I'm not a lawyer and my opinion is in noway authoritive I do not
believe there is any violation. They ay be an accessory to a potential
crime but they themselves did not do the tapping.
Now on the other hand those companies that did the tapping should be
OK for as long as they are clear
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Krassimir Tzvetanov
mailli...@krassi.biz wrote:
While I'm not a lawyer and my opinion is in noway authoritive I do not
believe there is any violation. They ay be an accessory to a potential
crime but they themselves did not do the tapping.
Now on the other
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Krassimir Tzvetanov
mailli...@krassi.biz wrote:
While I'm not a lawyer and my opinion is in noway authoritive I do not
believe there is any violation. They ay be an accessory to a potential
crime but they themselves did not do the tapping.
I think its a bit
Again, I'm not a lawyer but if somebody legally purchases a gun from
you for a legitimate purpose and then abuse it your are not liable (US
context here).
The same way if somebody purchases this cert to monitor their
employees for data exfiltration (perfectly good reason, if specified
in the
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:57:02 -0500
Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Krassimir Tzvetanov
mailli...@krassi.biz wrote:
While I'm not a lawyer and my opinion is in noway authoritive I do
not believe there is any violation. They ay be an accessory to a
They also claim in their defense that other CAs are doing this.
Evading computer security systems and tampering with communications is
a violation of federal law in the US.
As the article made quite clear, this particular cert was used to
monitor traffic on the customer's own network, which is
On 02/12/2012 10:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
They also claim in their defense that other CAs are doing this.
Evading computer security systems and tampering with communications is
a violation of federal law in the US.
As the article made quite clear, this particular cert was used to
monitor
On 13/02/12 10:53 AM, Marsh Ray wrote:
On 02/12/2012 10:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
They also claim in their defense that other CAs are doing this.
Evading computer security systems and tampering with communications is
a violation of federal law in the US.
As the article made quite clear, this
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Krassimir Tzvetanov
mailli...@krassi.biz wrote:
I agree, I'm just reflecting on the reality... :(
Reality is actually as I described, at least for some shops that I'm
familiar with.
___
cryptography mailing list
On Feb 12, 2012, at 10:26 46PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Krassimir Tzvetanov
mailli...@krassi.biz wrote:
I agree, I'm just reflecting on the reality... :(
Reality is actually as I described, at least for some shops that I'm
familiar with.
The trend is the
I'm sure the trend is currently the other way, yes, but with low-cost
high-bandwidth wireless becoming more common it doesn't really matter,
does it?
And it all depends on the organization and it's risk taking profile.
But to bring this back on topic: I'd rather see draconian corporate
network
11 matches
Mail list logo
