--
-- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
__
ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.leitl.org
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002
At 7:52 PM -0700 on 6/24/02, Somebody wrote:
Uh, come on, Bob. If the original message is sent to a certain list, there
is no reason to forward it without comment to that same certain list.
Damn. Got cryptography confused with cypherpunks.
My mistake. Sorry about that.
Cheers,
RAH
--
Pete Chown wrote:
[...]
This doesn't help with your other point, though; people wouldn't be able
to modify the code and have a useful end product. I wonder if it could
be argued that your private key is part of the source code?
Am I expected to distribute my password with my code?
I don't believe that the choice is both privacy and TCPA, or neither.
Essentially all privacy violations are abuses of authorised access by
insiders. Your employer's medical insurance scheme insists on a
waiver allowing them access to your records, which they then use for
promotion decisions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I should say, at this point in things, that I've never complained at
all about Brin's heralding some mechanical ubiquity of *observation*,
per se, any more than I complain about the market, celestial
mechanics, or the weather. You can't fight Moore's
