On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:43:50AM -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
At 09:58 AM 6/1/2001 +0800, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
At 07:22 AM 5/31/2001 +0800, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
Besides, it would be idiotic to grant access to information or
authorization
for a transaction to someone, just
I wrote:
First, it should be obvious that They don't need a submarine to tap cables
that already make landfall in the US, which is the vast majority:
Then at 07:33 PM 6/1/01 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Of course they have reasons to want to
tap cables that make landfall in the US.
1) I
Military intelligence folks have always been very adept in
playing with the press. By throwing a juicy sausage one after
another into the kennel, you can keep the dogs chasing their own
tails indefinitely. (It's fun, too, unless you happen to be a dog).
Professional paranoia would seem to
there may be a slightly different issue ... at least, with regard to one of
early projected applications for certificates which was consumer identity
in retail financial transactions. At least EU has talked about making
retail transactions as anonymous as cash ... which sort of rules out using
