1993-08-18 - The Zen of Anonymity
Header Data
From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fd722bbb572eb5882ad30937c60d36c2ebd0718707ecb5f69aa7bacd128d8ee1
Message ID: <9308181448.AA22436@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <9308180735.AA14083@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-08-18 14:50:38 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:50:38 PDT
Raw message
From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:50:38 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The Zen of Anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9308180735.AA14083@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9308181448.AA22436@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>Given: Some graffiti is on the wall.
>Question: who is `responsible' or `liable' for graffiti?
This question already has a known answer. The author of the words is
the one that is liable for them. No other parties are liable unless
they had prior knowledge; this would make them conspirators.
In libel cases specifically, if you can prove who the author was, you
can sue. If you can't, too bad. Heh, heh, heh.
I asked Mike Godwin about this specifically a few months ago. I
mention him here to give him to opportunity to correct or elaborate.
Eric
Thread
Return to August 1993
- Return to “csvcjld@nomvst.lsumc.edu”
- Return to “Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>”
- Return to “khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)”
- Return to ““L. Detweiler” <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>”
Return to “Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>”
- 1993-08-18 (Wed, 18 Aug 93 00:35:46 PDT) - The Zen of Anonymity - “L. Detweiler” <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
- 1993-08-18 (Wed, 18 Aug 93 02:10:35 PDT) - Re: The Zen of Anonymity - khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
- 1993-08-18 (Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:50:38 PDT) - The Zen of Anonymity - Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
- 1993-08-18 (Wed, 18 Aug 93 08:10:55 PDT) - Differential Cryptanalysis of the DES - csvcjld@nomvst.lsumc.edu
- 1993-08-18 (Wed, 18 Aug 93 09:55:42 PDT) - Re: The Zen of Anonymity - Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>