From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:29:29 +0800
To: David Rosoff <drosoff@arc.unm.edu>
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
Message-ID: <199605222104.OAA06174@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:40 PM 5/22/96 -0600, David Rosoff wrote:

>>But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined.  A remailer operator 
>>today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely 
>>doesn't know that they are, currently.  I think that the definition should 
>>be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government 
>>itself)  to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward 
>>arguably illegal or copyright-violating material.
>>
>>
>>Jim Bell
>>jimbell@pacifier.com
>
>Can the same sort of standards as per the U.S. CDA be applied? The first
>draft of the
>CDA would have held ISP's responsible for, e.g., porn transmitted using their 
>services. Isn't this the same sort of thing - that is, that remailer
>operators provide a service, and they cannot be held responsible for people who abuse that
>service? I think that this line of thought is reasonable.

"Reasonable," yes.  But remailers provide a service that governments won't 
consider politically popular; ISP's provide a nominally popular service.  
The government will find a way to interpret the actions of a remailer 
entirely differnetly than that of an ISP.   Sigh.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com