On 2013-05-22 4:20 AM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:17:02 +1000
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Police install malware by black bagging, and by the same methods as
botnets. Both methods are noticeable.
I do not think the following scenario is terribly far-fetched:
Suppose the pol
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:17:02 +1000
"James A. Donald" wrote:
> Police install malware by black bagging, and by the same methods as
> botnets. Both methods are noticeable.
I do not think the following scenario is terribly far-fetched:
Suppose the police want to target a grad student in a CS dep
On 21/05/13 10:17 AM, ianG wrote:
http://download.skype.com/share/security/2005-031%20security%20evaluation.pdf
Just because it is a superlative example of a clear statement, here is
what Tom said about their Security Policy:
1.2 Security Policy
A Security Policy defines what “security”
On 20/05/13 23:01 PM, Stephan Neuhaus wrote:
On May 20, 2013, at 15:03, ianG wrote:
[1] at least, in anglo countries, society's convention is that one sticks to
the facts. In Germany and perhaps others, proof of facts is not necessarily a
defence against defamation of a company.
Any exam
On 20/05/13 20:08 PM, Mark Seiden wrote:
(i know that at least jake and ian understand all the nuances here, probably
better than me.)
bus still, i would like you to consider, for a moment, this question:
suppose there were a service that intentionally wanted to protect recipients of
communic
On 20/05/13 21:02 PM, Adam Back wrote:
The user, encrypted with their password. Its roamable but the keys were
end2end encrypted with the user password. The independent audit skype paid
for of their crypto design is probably still online.
By Tom Berson, 2005. I do not know the gentleman but
