"U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"

[Faustine]

Mike wrote:
"Faustine" <a3495 at cotse.com> wrote :
>Adam wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is 
>| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also 
>| pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, 
>| terrorist-grade, etc.
>>I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. 
>
>And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are 
>willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their 
>betas to the NSA, you never will. 
>
>Holy faulty logic Batman! This has to be one of the more doofy things
>I've heard. It's right up there with the EMI Grounding Strap thread.
>What're you going to do, sell a product in CompUSA with instructions to
>the cashiers that the NSA is not allowed to buy it? If the NSA is
>willing to pay for some software that's great. They've got as much right
>to buy it as anyone else. 

True, of course they do. "Technology is morally neutral," sure, whatever. 
Yay capitalism. I still think handing over your security product beta on a 
silver platter in exchange for a nice fat government contract is a stupid, 
stupid idea.


>As long as they obey the law! and don't
>reverse engineer it, let them share in financing further development.

Do you really think that anyone would have the slightest qualm about 
reverse engineering a product like this when "national security interests" 
are at stake?


>I would find it more relevant to know which commercial product designs
>have been influenced by which non-commercial agencies.

Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are fairly 
bleak. 

>oy g'vay ( sp? )

close enough. ;)


~Faustine.