On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Sean Donelan wrote: :I was refering to why something like Altivore wouldn't satisfy the unknown :requirements the FBI has. Do we know if specifications will have to be made public? I can't imagine mail administrators and sysadmins all having to get public trust (or higher) clearances. Is there a definition of 'ISP' in the US, either in this proposed legislation or other? We could speculate forever about juristdiction (over trans-national networks) and implications of these sort of things, but it would be nice to have some solid info. -j p.s. <short rant> The first step in developing any security policy is to enumerate and appraise the things that the policy will be designed to protect. Evidently, there has been no public consultation on what the recent legislation in various countries has been designed to protect. Most of the measures which have been demanded by our leaders have the symptoms of a security policy, and use technologies which would be used to enforce a policy, but there has been no public discussioin of what they actually think they are protecting. Of all the new sources offering analysis, opinion and their own brand of earnest reason, I'll take the Onion over CNN any day. "Freedoms Curtailed in Defense of Liberty". Brilliant. </short rant> -- batz Reluctant Ninja Defective Technologies