-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11 Apr 01, at 20:30, Leo Howell wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we couldn't here in the UK - the license specifically
> says that communications must not be encrypted. However if we disabled
Same in the US.
> the between-node encryption it gets more interesting since the data itself
> is encrypted with the hash of the key, or something. So the question is,
> would the communications then be counted as encrypted? I don't think they
There's no doubt that they would be here. Legalisms aside, what it all
comes down to is that the FCC must be able to monitor any communications
taking place on amateur frequencies to ensure that no illegal traffic is
being passed.
Amateur networks are too slow anyway; but that's another story.
> are, because assuming you are passing on the request (and forwarding
> traffic is still legal :) it has no more meaning to you or the destination
> than it does to anyone listening - you are just transferring a stream of
> bytes for someone else.
>
> The only illegal part would be linking your node to the internet (which
> you can't do without a NoV here) or actually initiating the query - both
> of which you can't easily tell are happening.
>
That part is actually legal here.
Doc Evans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: Key obtainable from servers: ID 0x362912B8
iQA/AwUBOun+zWnXrLw2KRK4EQKgggCgvFJ5egyfX1q035db9nRsRfr3Y6gAn2sv
mIEcjtPkgfXYMXWcoF5lvI5h
=a6me
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans N7DR / G4AMJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two assassins and one very manipulative businessman:
"Reflexive Action" is now available.
See http://www.sff.net/people/N7DR/drevans.htp for details.
----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
