Re: California State Bill SB1386
From: Rodrigo Barbosa (rodrigob@tisbrasil.com.br)
Date: 03/25/03
- Previous message: Rohrer, Mark E: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- In reply to: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Next in thread: System Administrator: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:20:51 -0300 From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@tisbrasil.com.br> To: incidents@securityfocus.com
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 08:57:47PM -0800, Steve Zenone wrote:
> I appreciate the various replies that I've received. However,
> the fundamental question of what defines encryption, so far as
> SB1386 is concerned, is still unanswered. I've looked through
Well, like it or not, ROT13 IS encryption.
Weak ? True. Stupid ? Even more true. But encryption it is.
The problem with legislation about technical issues is that we
depend on "lists" (theses methods are ok, these are not etc), or
on fairly abstract concepts.
Based on what I've seen this far about encryption legislation,
you are in for a very big trouble. This issue will have to be
resolved in court.
[]s
-- Rodrigo Barbosa - rodrigob at tisbrasil.com.br "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Powerful Anti-Spam Management and More... SurfControl E-mail Filter puts the brakes on spam, viruses and malicious code. Safeguard your business critical communications. Download a free 30-day trial: http://www.surfcontrol.com/go/zsfihl1
- Previous message: Rohrer, Mark E: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- In reply to: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Next in thread: System Administrator: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
