Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: quasi on 18 Apr 2008 19:22 no judicial * review. * No. Yes. [301-308] * * Crime for use of encryption in * furtherance of a crime. * Yes. Use of a licensed KRA * is a defense. * Yes. No KRA defense. [104] * * Crime for issuance of a key in * furtherance of a crime. * No. Yes. [105] * * Gov't access to keys by subpoena * without notice and or judicial approval * Yes. Yes. [106] * * Foreign gov't access to keys * Yes. Yes. [106] * * Federal procurements require key * recovery. * No. Yes. [201-207] * * Federal funding (Internet II, * universities, etc.) requires use of key * recovery. * No. Yes. [201-207] * * "Safe harbor" liability protections for * licensed CA's and recovery agents * Yes. Yes. [501-505] Less extensive * than Administration draft. * * Requires Pres. to negotiate for * international key recovery. * No. Yes. [Title 6] * * New Commerce Dept. enforcement * powers * No. Yes. [701-702] * * Information Security Board * No. Yes. [801] * * Waiver of any provision of Act by * Executive Order. * No. Yes [901] * * * *The Encrypted Data Security Act, draft dated April 29, 1997. * * **The Secure Public Networks Act, as released on June 1
From: tchow on 18 Apr 2008 22:07 & CEO of Intel Corporation, is asked whether * bomb-making information should be censored from the Internet. * * "No. The same information is available in libraries, and we don't * censor libraries, nor should we. When I was thirteen I built a * nitroglycerin bomb. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do, * and I knew someone who had their hand blown off, but I am * adamantly against censoring such material." * * "And unlike a library, a parent can buy a program that uses keyword * monitoring to disallow Internet traffic per the parents' wishes. * Such a program is available now, and costs only $29." I think I looked at it for all of 30 seconds before putting in my bookshelf. I don't remember the bomb-making details in it. I have a vague impression of a lot of squiggly lines, suitable for a really bad coloring book. I also purchased a variety of odd privacy-related publications from Eden Press. What is the Official Federal Dangerous Book List? What books did they check on for their 'Library Awareness Program'? How was it determined these books made people dangerous? Who approved this Fahrenheit 451 persecuted-for-books program? The Thought Police had testified in court against Ed Cummings. The judge rules on whether Ed is guilty of probation violation: > The judge determined that a probation violation had indeed taken place > and that Cummings should be held and a sentencing date scheduled within > 60 days. The judge had just done the same thing for a man who had just > committed his third DWI offense. In fact, he had kill
From: Pubkeybreaker on 18 Apr 2008 22:14 York Times, 2/15/1996 * * China ordered all users of the Internet to register with the police, as * part of an effort to tighten control over information. * * The order came from the Ministry of Public Security. * * Network users have been warned not to harm national security, or to * disseminate pornography. Well, there's a new way to control Internet users: require them to identify themselves, no doubt your U.S.-created National ID Card will be required for access. That ought to stop pornography: identify each and every user. # "The Great Firewall of China", by Geremie R. Barme & Sang Ye, Wired, 6/97 # # Xia Hong, China InfoHighway's PR man: "The Internet has been an important # technical innovator, but we need to add another element, and that is # control. The new generation of information superhighway needs a traffic # control center. It needs highway patrols; USERS WILL REQUIRE DRIVER'S # LICENSES. THESE ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT." In dissenting on the unconstitutionality of the CDA, which attempted to censor the Internet, Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, together with the Chief Justice, said CDA will be legal as soon as: "it becomes technologically feasible...to check a person's [Internet] driver's license..
From: S.C.Sprong on 18 Apr 2008 20:37 * It was after midnight by now. They uncuffed my right hand, then * cuffed my left hand to the metal pole. My left arm was stretched * up to reach it. * * Then they left the house and left me hanging * there like that for over three hours. * * They came back around 3:30 AM with a third man. * * I asked if I could use the bathroom. * * I was desperate to go. * * They would not let me. * * They told me that my husband was in custody, that they had just picked * him up. [That was false.] They said we could work out a deal, I could * be a witness for the prosecution of our friend. * * If I would do that, they would let my husband go. * * They also said they knew I only had $78 in my bank account, hinting * that they could change that. * * A fourth man came into the house. * * I will never forget his eyes. * * He took out a small Palistinian flag and burned it. * * Then they took me out, back into the car. They stopped about two miles * from my house. They said 'Listen Babe, when you least expect us, expect * us. WE WILL ALWAYS BE A
From: Matthew T. Russotto on 18 Apr 2008 20:31
did not mean that the children did not exist. An appeals officer # agreed and overruled the auditor, saying that there was no deficiency # in the woman's tax return. ---- Here is a more detailed example of how government expands surveillance (and thus control) in a seemingly never-ending manner...consider this when talking about a National ID Card: Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? Of course it is. * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately * surrounding the home." * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute * a Fourth Amendment search. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. What is this? * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu * Date: 1996/12/27 * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military * * What interests me is how new technologies will |