1994-09-17 - NYT/Markoff article on RC4

Header Data

From: Jeff Gostin <jgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d9e2233f928a81793d8723dec15cab0de039eeecbe5299563816b7d085c486d3
Message ID: <940917125231H4kjgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-09-17 18:50:23 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 11:50:23 PDT

Raw message

From: Jeff Gostin <jgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 11:50:23 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: NYT/Markoff article on RC4
Message-ID: <940917125231H4kjgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"Brian A. LaMacchia" <bal@martigny.ai.mit.edu> writes:

> The article does mention this list, which is called, "a specialized
> computer network mailing list of computer researchers who oppose
> the Government's stringent controls on data encryption technology."
     A tad succinct, but perhaps not too far offbase. Is it fair to say
that we support the free flow of information, and place the responsibility
for maintaining the privacy of that information on the party said
information concerns?

     Now, I know that saying "we" has certain implications, mainly that of
a list consensus. However, it seems that a great many people here seem to
post to that regard. Am I correct in my observation?

                                        --Jeff
--
======  ======    +----------------jgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+
  ==    ==        | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,|
  ==    ==  -=    | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig.  |
====    ======    | Now with a new fresh lemon scent!                       |
PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+ 





Thread