On 14th November 2000, Peter Csonka of the Council of Europe was
reported as denying that the Cybercrime convention conferred powers for
government access to encryption keys (That was never our intention
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/45/ns-19057.html)
However on the Second Reading of the
More from Rodney - I'm avoiding the is law relevant? branch of this
thread because I think it's wandering off-topic, but can continue in
private email if any of the participants think it's likely to be productive.
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 08:33:29 -0700
To: Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:
one of the biggest problems that has led to most of the regulations is the
ease that account-number harvesting can occur and then the account number
used in fraudulent, non-authenticated transactions. The SET-like protocols
didn't address this issue. However, there is a huge amount of stuff
... and the x9.59 solution was designed to be applicable to all
account-based, electronic payments not just credit ... but all.
much of the regs. are specific to credit (because of the ease that
account-number harvesting can lead to fraudulent, non-authenticated
transactions) ... while
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
one of the biggest problems that has led to most of the regulations is the
ease that account-number harvesting can occur and then the account number
used in fraudulent, non-authenticated transactions. The SET-like protocols
didn't address this issue.
How so? In at
