From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr@together.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:38:47 +0800
To: "David Miller" <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>
Subject: Re: Eternity Services
Message-ID: <199801121429.JAA25262@mx02.together.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 1/11/98 6:35 PM, David Miller (dm0@avana.net)  passed this wisdom:

>There is one thing that comes to mind that was just a topic covered 
>on this list and that is the use of cellular/wireless/RF/ham for 
>connections to said machines.
>
>Obviously, this would make seizure more difficult (and perhaps 
>increase the likelyhood of prior warning, if for example, cellular 
>service was suddenly cut off).
>
>I am currently studying some parallels between the established FCC 
>tolerance of ham radio self-regulation vis-a-vis anonymous 
>remailers. I haven't yetdrawn up my opinions, as they are still 
>being formed. I think that this might be one avenue to look down as 
>there is obviously a type of legal precident in what is 
>allowed/tolerated under obvious FCC jursidiction, whereas the 
>jurisdiction over IP is obviously still ambiguous.

 On the surface there would appear to be some parallels worth thinking
upon with regard to ham/FCC. but the ham radio community for the most
part qualifies under the category of 'sheeple'. Separate out the
hotheads and idiots and you have a handful of forward thinkers who
want to try to push the envelope held back by the vast majority of
reactionaries. Even when the forward thinkers want to push the
envelope within the rules, not even asking for relaxed or waived
rules, they react with 'this is not the way we have always done it.'
The FCC and the Washington establishment is well aware of this and
that is why they more or less leave hams alone to regulate their own
quiet little tea party.

 I cannot see the FCC looking kindly on the use by hams or
establishment of a Citizen's Radio Data Service (as has been proposed
several times through the years) to establish a secured delibrately
obscured data network. As far as hams are concerned they are limited,
right off the bat, by regulations prohibiting use of 'codes or
encipherment whose purpose is to obscure the meaning of the
message(data).' The ham self-regulation may be a precedent, but I
don't think it would provide any leverage on this matter. Of course,
there is always steganograpy ... one man's GIF is another mans data.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNLokrj7r4fUXwraZAQFbWAf9GtQyI1PSRO8H4Iyb5Wp4xrWzMKbZuIHx
rdQtM3wEjL0l64u5gCFb082GDZWYJcj0wcehaLMn9BOp8QrooiGv9XstHqlHNYjL
/0dLTS4CT/qKkUl/68yqjB5i1KbDip1cO74dCcBVt/8G1S3IcjAGYP1V3nJtxwJ6
GlLjel9qQW4zzvnBOtQiD7HzU6V2FK5lIMa87zfuNvcREdlfyHG1L169sSq5CZEU
XT7HGxrXsmfnolgFPMqVrcIYlccc+m6vx6MmPY8XIM7vU1ybDk9wDC75Eg2aSZVw
5fQn6CogpnootVHczSog3xg3RDZkgmm0xhArbBdBNjopxScEUvIjFg==
=m+3f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr
 For PGP Keys  <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key>

 "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and
  write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn."   -Alvin 
Toffler