1996-04-21 - [Yadda Yadda] Re: OS/2 encryption utilities

Header Data

From: abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick)
To: jimbell@pacifier.com
Message Hash: 4f179b777e9cb08e5333248efce46898b46ef12447689d167d2f5ab91b9d3be6
Message ID: <Yxaex8m9LksY085yn@netcom.com>
Reply To: <m0uAnQG-0008yqC@pacifier.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-21 09:50:51 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:50:51 +0800

Raw message

From: abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick)
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:50:51 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com
Subject: [Yadda Yadda] Re: OS/2 encryption utilities
In-Reply-To: <m0uAnQG-0008yqC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Yxaex8m9LksY085yn@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <m0uAnQG-0008yqC@pacifier.com>,
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote:
> At 06:08 PM 4/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 mirele@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> >> Due to the fact that I have been threatened by the Church of Scientology
> >> with legal action if I do not cease and desist posting encheferated
> >> parodies of their secret scripture (per a letter I received from Cult
> >> attorneys via Federal Express today) I am in search of OS/2 disk
> >> encryption programs.
> >
> >Were I a Co$ attorney, I would use this to bring discovery violations 
> >if I took you to court.
> 
> You know, I've always thought it odd how some people misuse the English 
> language when they speak in their chosen shorthand.  "bring discovery 
> violations"?  How, exactly, does one _BRING_ a "discovery violation"?   
> Like, maybe, bring it in a whellbarrow?!?   Is "bring" a proper word in this 
> context?  Why not stop using that silly shorthand.
> 
> BTW, you seem to have forgotten that this would be an excellent way to deter 
> the kind of "knock and smash" warrant service common amongst government 
> thugs.  Any argument by the cops that "we must break down the door or else 
> they'll erase the data!" is rendered obviously silly if the data is ALREADY 
> encrypted and inaccessible. If anything, it would make the data permanently 
> inaccessible since it would make (arguably) the release of a decrypt key 
> "incriminating" if it were a criminal case. 
> 
> Yet another excellent reason to encrypt the data is that it deters 
> burglaries, where the purpose of the burglary is to get this data illegally. 
>  Given the COS's history, that is a reasonable fear.
> 
> Jim Bell
> 
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

subscribe clueless jimbell@pacifier.com

- -- 
Alan Bostick               | They say in online country there is no middle way
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | You'll either be a Usenet man or a thug for the CDA
news:alt.grelb             |    Simon Spero (after Tom Glazer)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBMXmsmuVevBgtmhnpAQG6IAL+LUJpn1C056Hff6wmmwhHVfSWiy1d9PUy
gYtM0IceT8q7xDmRTph4Nfh6Vel+QzjrlPSunpHlmHe/tvPp7asmp3ci1Pkoecp1
w1cvcc0nxs/LsWjJoDxoNmmlUHsug+z5
=rQ+d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Thread