cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1998-10-09 - Re: Web TV with 128b exported

Header Data

From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
To: Steve Bryan <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 22b0d02d4b598341dfe59f0cf17999991c96e80a6ea17fe31b1d1bb6c8fbc40a
Message ID: <3.0.5.32.19981009010603.008f8100@idiom.com>
Reply To: <3.0.5.32.19981007090445.008903c0@m7.sprynet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-09 08:31:19 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:31:19 +0800

Raw message

From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:31:19 +0800
To: Steve Bryan <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Web TV with 128b exported
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981007090445.008903c0@m7.sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981009010603.008f8100@idiom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 02:39 PM 10/7/98 -0500, Steve Bryan wrote:
> David Honig wrote:
> > I'd guess that the Export control puppets know that the Web-TV hubs will
> > be subpoena-able by the US even in these other "sovereign" nations.
> > The WebTV centralized infrastructure makes this easy.
>
> This announcement seems to be getting a lot of this sort of reaction but I
> don't see quite why the news is greeted with such animosity.  If a duly
> authorized search warrant is required in order to obtain information that
> represents a potential world of difference from having unrestricted ability
> to monitor all communications.

Who would you execute the search warrant _on_?  The web site and the
browser user?  (Then why not let Netscape and IE export 128-bit?)
Or some third party who has access to something in the middle
(and may not be picky about search warrants, and may not have as much
standing to resist a court order or subpoena) ?
Or is the WebTV 128-bit code crippleware, using some backdoor key
or other hole for police to break in?

Basically, it just sounds fishy.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Thread