From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: Ulf Moeller <um@c2.org>
Message Hash: cb2ef4d50e8f96dfe2fe3364249ba4a761f5c345d3e34c90466342576fc0031a
Message ID: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960702223715.28261E-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <m0ubEel-00006nC@ulf.mali.sub.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-03 09:01:42 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:01:42 +0800
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:01:42 +0800
To: Ulf Moeller <um@c2.org>
Subject: Re: Info on alleged new German digital wiretapping law?
In-Reply-To: <m0ubEel-00006nC@ulf.mali.sub.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.94.960702223715.28261E-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Ulf Moeller wrote:
> Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu> writes:
>
> > http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=3027
> >
> >and in alt.fan.ernst-zundel. What's up?
>
> The report is correct.
>
> The mainstream press has completely ingnored the wiretap legislation,
> probably because it is part of the long-awaited new telecommunications
> law to end the Telekom monopoly.
We 'merkins were probably just a little more aware.
So what's the prospect for implementation? The claim is that law enforcement
is supposed to have a back door to every computer system. Are we talking
about escrow of root passwords, or what? That's the bit I found loony, given
what I've heard (from you and others) about the generally semi-clueful
technology and telecoms ministries. Is it THAT bad?
-rich
Return to July 1996
Return to “um@c2.org (Ulf Moeller)”