[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Remailers Pose Risk
> Computerworld, February 12, 1996, Front page:
> "Anonymous remailers have a lot of nasty potential," said
> Stephen T. Kent, chief scientist for security technology at
>So do kitchen knives or automobiles.
So do brain-dead journalists and "security experts". Oops, take that back, no
probability involved, they are nasty problems.
[..]
> One snowy day last month, for example, about 25% of the
> workforce at a defense contractor in Rockville, Md., went
> home after they received a bogus E-mail message dismissing
> them for the day. The message originated from an anonymous
> remailer that allowed the user to impersonate a senior
> company official.
:Was that a remailer or simply forged mail?
How long have people been bitching about putting digital signatures on stuff
like that. If it was signed, it could of been verified if indeed it was legit
or not.
Irregardless of where it came from, anybody stupid enough to believe everything
they read, without checking out it's validity, deserves what they get.
[..]
> "As in the case of smallpox, yellow fever, flu epidemics,
> AIDS or malaria, it will take disasters before the public
> may accept that some forms of restrictions on the
> electronic freedom of speech and that privacy may be
> worthwhile."FNORD!
What?? like anonymous electronic media spreads the disease somehow. To the
person who wrote the article, you have proved beond a shadow of a doubt that
you are dense as a brick. Wrong type of virus, you mean the other kind.
> Do's and don'tsAhem
> Unethical or illegal uses of anonymous remailers:[..]
> - To violate copyright laws ... Scientology...
> - To encourage others to commit unethical or illegal
> behavior
Oh Boo Hoo, the moral decay of society, that is your problem shithead, not
mine, some of us survive no matter what happens to the rest of you.
Regards,
Michael Peponis
PGP Key Avalible form MIT Key Server,or via finger