1995-01-13 - Re: How do I know if its encrypted?

Header Data

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: dba1b9593e776f1070925d4875a29edf9ac010cb7abb318f32904d917bee4713
Message ID: <199501131746.JAA02913@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <199501122233.OAA02325@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-13 17:48:25 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 09:48:25 PST

Raw message

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 09:48:25 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
In-Reply-To: <199501122233.OAA02325@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199501131746.JAA02913@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: daleh@ix.netcom.com (Dale Harrison (AEGIS))

   Paco begins by 
   inventing the new [format] of which only Paco knows the internals.

Fine.  The operator has no idea of how to make sense of this data
format.  Just because someone in the world has an interpretation for
it doesn't mean that I do.

No operator of any data service can be expected to know about every
data interpretation.  The key here is "good faith".  An operator can
undertake a good faith effort to remain ignorant about content.

The argument that "it passed the filter, so it's approved" is bogus.
The counter is that "it passed the filter, so I personally have no
idea what's inside it."  Knowledge here is personal specific
knowledge, not an acknowledgement of a possibility.

Eric





Thread