cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1996-10-10 - Re: “Forward Privacy” for ISPs and Customers

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
To: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
Message Hash: fec1cc8629e75d4cfe0e3a6693aaab00593fa6fc398332388597183efde64f46
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961010055215.6351C-100000@eff.org>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961009171647.683B-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-10 12:54:52 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 05:54:52 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 05:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: "Forward Privacy" for ISPs and Customers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961009171647.683B-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961010055215.6351C-100000@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A month or two ago, I searched through the existing DT statute and posted 
language that could be interpreted as applying to ISPs. If there's an ISP
exemption I missed, please post...

-Declan


On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Mark M. wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > Back to the legal issue. Perhaps the Digital Telephony Act will be
> > interpreted to require ISPs to make their systems "tappable," possibly by
> > adding message logging. possibly just by offering access to the T1s and T3s
> > only ("OK, Feds, here's where the T3 enters the building...be careful you
> > don't cut the core, OK?").
> 
> I think there is a section of DT that explicitly excludes ISP's.
> Of course, this can, and probably will be, changed.
> 
> Mark
> --
> finger -l for key
> PGP encrypted mail prefered.
> 
> Good signature from user "Mark Miller 2048-bit key <markm@voicenet.com>".
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

Thread