From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 17:11:08 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Anonymous remailers and keyservers.
Message-ID: <199312170109.AA11945@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A keyserver that doesn't patent (or
copyright?  Who told you that?)
()()

oops, did I say copyright...?



First of all, I wrote the new replacement keyserver and I happen
to know it isn't even released yet (except to a handful of people
for the purposes of testing portability and ease of installation etc),
()()

I hadn't realized that my message implied this.



so it is not *possible* that the new sites have been harassed, and I
think you should wait until it happens before you start worrying about
it.  As I've said before, all these keyservers will be doing is
*publishing* information, and that's a protected right in the US.
()()

Again, I did not mean for my message to so imply, my point was
that it was a possbility and considering past behavior, not
way beyond PKP.

I really wanted to point out that it might be an interesting
statement on other internet services (none come to mind which
might be the most revealing statement on the applicability
of the idea) and the use of anonymous remailers.



Now, if pkp choose to start chasing down people who publish their
keys and asking them if they have a license (assuming they're in
the US and need one), that's a different thing altogether, but
that could happen at the moment given that the actual keys are
up for ftp all over already.
()()

I had not considered this, it was a little beyond the scope of my
message.  I was more concerned with the operators of the servers
not the end users.  It's a good point none the less.



A keyserver that doesn't patent (or
copyright?  Who told you that?) infringe *cannot* be closed down
even if the people whose keys are published *are* harassed.
()()

You use the word *cannot* pretty strictly.
I think you mean legally cannot.  Consider that the keyservers
that have been closed down (if they have...?) may fall into the
legally *cannot* be shut down group.  They just haven't been tested
yet.
What I think you mean is legally cannot, as opposed
to practically cannot.  Political pressure is plenty
enough to make university administrators jumpy.

Private machines are immune of course (to some extent anyhow).



Anyway, the keyservers have to exist for the benefit of both ViaCrypt
customers and European FreePGP users.
()()

And argueably those who don't hold ViaCrypt licenses.

-uni- (Dark)