1995-02-13 - Re: bill alert…

Header Data

From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
To: lile@art.net (Lile Elam)
Message Hash: 02a2a4151284658f50218cee024083eabbe0c785803024c475c468ac5eb0c61d
Message ID: <199502131813.NAA20427@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply To: <199502130515.VAA14482@art.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-13 18:14:21 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 10:14:21 PST

Raw message

From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 10:14:21 PST
To: lile@art.net (Lile Elam)
Subject: Re: bill alert...
In-Reply-To: <199502130515.VAA14482@art.net>
Message-ID: <199502131813.NAA20427@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Do you think this will force folks into using encryption?
> If I was a sysop, I sure would have all my users using
> encryption... :)

Which bill do you mean (aside from the one in the whitehouse)?

Why force users to do anything. There are other measures, such as running
the system on a secure file/device/drive system.  Well, that would only
help prevent anyone who yeggs your physical system from looking at it--
could even put you in more legal doo-doo that if the users encrypted it.

Getting users to encrypt their mail is pointless as a defense against
this bill, since the authorities' usual way of 'busting' systems is to
call in, become just another user and download (or get a minor to download)
'evil' files or messages.

Rob





Thread