1997-10-10 - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful
Header Data
From: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: a70a9c0edd557683cb35af03e066ae742eaa265fdc643018f81213749d16c999
Message ID: <11579.876513953@zelkova.qualcomm.com>
Reply To: <v03102800b064086075b3@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-10 20:19:39 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:39 +0800
Raw message
From: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b064086075b3@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <11579.876513953@zelkova.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 9:50 PDT on Friday, October 10, 1997, Tim May wrote:
|I don't think we've yet seen a good example of massive amounts of e-mail
|being examined in a "discovery" process, yet, but we saw the effects on IBM
|during its antitrust issues in the 70s. Basically, every scrap of paper,
|every desk calendar, every internal memo, everything, had to be turned over
|to opposing counsel.
|
|We will almost certainly see some examples of where lawyers demand access
|to all company e-mail.
Several lawsuits about discriminatory denial of tenure have been won partly
based on the contents of email. The University of Illinois periodically
reminds all staff that email is considered a public record and that they
should conduct their business with that in mind.
/pbp
Thread
Return to October 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to “Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>”
- Return to “Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>”
- Return to “Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>”
- Return to ““John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>”
- Return to “lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)”
- Return to “Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>”
- Return to “Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>”
- Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>”
- 1997-10-07 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:44:17 +0800) - What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:42:36 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:07:14 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:55:48 +0800) - access to storage keys, NOT comms keys! (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:56:39 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:18 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:39 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:56:46 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:27:31 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:06 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:39:33 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:35 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:24:06 +0800) - do NOT escrow communications keys (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-13 (Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:06:53 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:54 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)