From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 06:00:59 +0800
To: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@styx.ios.com>
Subject: Re: Is ths legal?.. (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9512171010.A7388-0100000@styx.ios.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951217155251.2240A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Jay Holovacs wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > I disagree.  Instead it implies that interception and administrative 
> > review of content will be tolerated where it is "a necessary incident to 
> > the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or 
> > property of the provider of that service."  Note that it will be the 
> > provider who makes the definition in the ex ante application.
> > 

> The provider is allowed access ONLY for QC purposes.

This is only explicit with regards to public providers.

 Getting back to thhe 
> original point, the provider's ability to interpret the contents of the 
> message is in no way required to monitor the system and cannot be used as 
> a justification in itself for prohibiting use of crypto. 

Oh?  What if I say that I need to monitor e-mail for data corruption?
Also, you might consider the definition of "intercept."  I suspect it's a 
bit wider than you are accounting for.


> Also, what if someone outside the system emails encrypted messages to the 
> user. What authority would the sys admin have there??

Entirely unrelated to the statute you cite.

> Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com>
> PGP Key fingerprint =  AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27  AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 
>  (KEY id 1024/80E4AA05) email for key
> 
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information