AARG!Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Be sure and send a note to the Gnutella people reminding them of all
you're doing for them, okay, Lucky?
Do the Gnutella people share your feelings on this matter? I'd be
surprised.
--
__ Paul Crowley
\/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/\__/
I'm genuinely sorry, but I couldn't resist this...
At 12:35 PM -0400 on 8/11/02, Sean Smith wrote:
Actually, our group at Dartmouth has an NSF Trusted Computing
grant to do this, using the IBM 4758 (probably with a different
OS) as the hardware.
We've been calling the project Marianas,
i guess it's appropriate that the world's deepest
hole is next to something labelled a trust territory :)
--Sean
:)
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:25:40PM -0700, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
Several people have objected to my point about the anti-TCPA efforts of
Lucky and others causing harm to P2P applications like Gnutella.
The point that a number of people made is that what is said in the
article is not workable:
TCPA and Palladium are content control for the masses. They
are an attempt to encourage the public to confuse the public
interest issues of content control with the private interest
issues of privacy and security.
Seth Johnson
--
[CC] Counter-copyright:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:25:40 -0700
From: AARG!Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, as if my normal style has been so effective. Not one person has
given me the least support in my efforts to explain the truth about TCPA
and Palladium.
Hal, I think you were right on when you wrote:
But
Wow, this conversation has been fun. Thanks, Anonymous Aarg, for
taking up the unpopular side of the debate. I'll spare any question
about motives.
I think most of us would agree that having a trusted computing
environment makes some interesting things possible. Smartcards,
afterall, are more or
Anonymous wrote:
As far as Freenet and MojoNation, we all know that the latter shut down,
probably in part because the attempted traffic-control mechanisms made
the whole network so unwieldy that it never worked.
Right, so let's solve this problem. Palladium/TCPA solves the problem
in one
On Friday, Aug 9, 2002, at 13:05 US/Eastern, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
If only... Luckily the cypherpunks are doing all they can to make sure
that no such technology ever exists. They will protect us from being
able
to extend trust across the network. They will make sure that any open
AARG!Anonymous wrote:
If only there were a technology in which clients could verify and yes,
even trust, each other remotely. Some way in which a digital certificate
on a program could actually be verified, perhaps by some kind of remote,
trusted hardware device. This way you could know
From: AARG!Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An article on Salon this morning (also being discussed on slashdot),
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/08/gnutella_developers/print.html,
discusses how the file-trading network Gnutella is being threatened by
misbehaving clients. In response,
Anonymous wrote:
... the file-trading network Gnutella is being threatened by
misbehaving clients. In response, the developers are looking at limiting
the network to only authorized clients:
This is the wrong solution. One of the important factors in the
Internet's growth was that the IETF
At 1:03 AM +0200 on 8/10/02, Some anonymous, and now apparently
innumerate, idiot in my killfile got himself forwarded to Mr. Leitl's
cream of cypherpunks list:
They will protect us from being able
to extend trust across the network.
As Dan Geer and Carl Ellison have reminded us on these
13 matches
Mail list logo
