1994-09-22 - (Fwd) Internet Security: Secure Communications Over Untrusted Networks
Header Data
From: “Ian Farquhar” <ianf@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0724dee0573aa08f3f18ba520b94eaa455124d8fbef7ba2272e8a8b7b961c56d
Message ID: <9409230835.ZM1769@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-09-22 22:38:23 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 15:38:23 PDT
Raw message
From: "Ian Farquhar" <ianf@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 15:38:23 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: (Fwd) Internet Security: Secure Communications Over Untrusted Networks
Message-ID: <9409230835.ZM1769@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> of effective cryptographic systems. He will highlight the
> problem of providing strong encryption for users of computer
> networks while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone else noticed how this exact phrase keeps popping up time
and time again? I for one don't consider it axiomatic, and have
grave doubts that LEO's do have a legitimate SIGINT requirement at all.
It looks like the opposition are formulating their own catch-cries now.
Ian.
#include <std.disclaimer>
Thread
Return to September 1994
- Return to ““Ian Farquhar” <ianf@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>”
Return to “Richard Johnson <Richard.Johnson@Colorado.EDU>”
- 1994-09-22 (Thu, 22 Sep 94 15:38:23 PDT) - (Fwd) Internet Security: Secure Communications Over Untrusted Networks - “Ian Farquhar” <ianf@wiley.sydney.sgi.com>
- 1994-09-22 (Thu, 22 Sep 94 16:10:44 PDT) - “Legitimate” needs of LE (Was Re: (Fwd) Internet Security: Secure Communications Over Untrusted Networks) - Richard Johnson <Richard.Johnson@Colorado.EDU>