[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Responding to Exon -- technology is not enough
Jason Burrell <[email protected]> writes:
>*Sigh*. Are we really ready to go back to UUCP? It looks like we'll have
>to. That is, if someone doesn't set up a couple cryptographically enhanced
>subnets first, or come up with some better idea. Interesting prospect,
>actually.
Fine for the tiny subset of Net users who understand crypto enough to use
it on a daily basis. I'm not one of people either. This crypto isn't user
friendly stuff. Before you propose such as solution, better make sure
people can use this stuff.
>Anyone wish to comment on the prospect of a double blind server, set
>outside U.S. borders, that can act as an interface to the rest of the
>world, perhaps encrypting or stego'ing the data transfered between it and
>the user? Basically, an anonymous remailer that acts as a cross between
>an NNTP, POP3, and SMTP servers.
How are you going to pitch this technology to all the people with AOL and
Microsoft Network accounts who barely understand the net? These are the
people who need exposure to all the uncensored expression they can get.
Instead of figuring out how to build a new treehouse that excludes Exon and
Hyde, how about fighting the damned bill in the courts?
[email protected] | WisCon 20: Two Decades of Feminism & SF
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/wiscon/ | Ursula K. Le Guin: Guest of Honor