From: eli+@gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 08:02:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: NYT/CyberTimes on CWD article
In-Reply-To: <+cmu.andrew.internet.cypherpunks+olrdBjW00UfAI10EoP@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <199607062057.NAA16062@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0706patrol-reporters.html
>              "If we believe the encryption scheme has
>              been compromised, we will make another
>              one."

Heh.

It seems that these companies are going to have a problem as long as
they use lists of *excluded* sites.  Forget insight into company
policy; these are global indices of "smut" on the net.  (The lists of
the more liberal companies are probably most attractive to those not
titillated by NOW position papers.)

They have to give you the list, and they have to give you software
that uses it, so there's no way to achieve complete secrecy.  I think
the best they can do is to distribute a list of hashed URLs.

--
   Eli Brandt
   eli+@cs.cmu.edu