cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-05-22 - Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns

Header Data

From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
To: Ben Holiday <ncognito@gate.net>
Message Hash: fa5535580cecd81ac814d59d52fef9cf5c11a77720a20cd123db500844f19bf9
Message ID: <9605212257.AA00853@ch1d157nwk>
Reply To: <Pine.A32.3.93.960521152031.52974B-100000@hopi.gate.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-22 05:10:50 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:10:50 +0800

Raw message

From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:10:50 +0800
To: Ben Holiday <ncognito@gate.net>
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.93.960521152031.52974B-100000@hopi.gate.net>
Message-ID: <9605212257.AA00853@ch1d157nwk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ben Holiday <ncognito@gate.net> writes:
>  As far as I can tell an agreement of this form would be at
>  least as valid as the software licenses ("NOTICE: Opening this
>  envelope constitutes your agreement to the terms.. blah blah
>  blah") that are commonly used today.

IANAL, but I have one, and he said (a couple of years ago) that these  
shrinkwrap contracts are practically worthless without a signature.  At least  
this was how things were being handled in some districts.  Anyone care to  
comment?

crypto relevance:  Can RSADSI __really__ enforce the silly "thou shalt not  
call certain functions" restrictions in their 'license'?  I doubt it, but I  
would love for someone to prove me wrong.


andrew

Thread