1997-12-20 - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”?
Header Data
From: bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: ef3122f2a139c364935399feb58dedffee70f4bb145478528a9d1971ba02447d
Message ID: <QzbXND2HpQOEiGmmHc51yQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-20 23:14:01 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 07:14:01 +0800
Raw message
From: bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 07:14:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"?
Message-ID: <QzbXND2HpQOEiGmmHc51yQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>(Even the _ability_ to block a pay phone, qua pay phone, must imply that
>pay phones send out some kind of signal announcing themselves as pay
>phones, which I had not heard of before. I assumed a pay phone was Just
>Another Phone Number.)
Caller ID identifies most pay phones as "PAY PHONE".
Thread
Return to December 1997
- Return to “bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org>”
Return to “dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)”
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 07:14:01 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:26:59 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)