Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!ima!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.motss,news.misc
Subject: Re: News and Motss
Message-ID: <557@spdcc.COM>
Date: Fri, 6-Mar-87 23:28:46 EST
Article-I.D.: spdcc.557
Posted: Fri Mar  6 23:28:46 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Mar-87 12:03:46 EST
References: <291@unisoft.UUCP> <294@unisoft.UUCP> <2990@ihlpg.ATT.COM> <1180@midas.TEK.COM> <348@netxcom.UUCP>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Followup-To: news.misc
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 21
Keywords: news fascist paranoia
Xref: utgpu soc.motss:1275 news.misc:204
Summary: let's avoid a rehash

I hope this won't turn into the perennial harangue about the non-privacy of
Email.  At least, I hope it won't turn into that on soc.motss.  Regardless
of the way people should act as a matter of honor or are required to act by
statute, it's only reasonable that anyone who really cares for privacy in their
electronic mail should use encryption.  There are just too many opportunities
for malicious snooping or well-intentioned system administration at every
point in the chain.  Do you think there's any protection from your mail being
read while it sits in a UUCP spool directory waiting to take the next hop?
How about when it sits in the sendmail queue?   As long as we're really being
paranoid, why don't I just use my PC and ethernet card to listen to all the
traffic on the net?

The fact that many systems impose their own concept of access permission
within the delivery mechanism means nothing when you start talking about
private machines or folks with root permissions or machines which can listen
to all packets on a network.  If your privacy is breached, you can feel
indignant, but don't feel surprised.
-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer