cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1993-10-04 - PGP in FIDO

Header Data

From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b43bde0d350e975bd52c722fa207037b87408ef2fd7efcd106d2a88e1b496663
Message ID: <9310041243.AA29441@vail.tivoli.com>
Reply To: <199310021906.AA13098@xtropia>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-04 12:49:47 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 05:49:47 PDT

Raw message

From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 05:49:47 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: PGP in FIDO
In-Reply-To: <199310021906.AA13098@xtropia>
Message-ID: <9310041243.AA29441@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com writes:
 > Anyway, the ECPA is basically irrelevant in the BBS world, as 1] almost
 > every BBS states at log-on that there is no such thing as truly
 > "private" e-mail on the system as the sysop can, will and does see
 > messages in all areas, and 2] he is personally _liable_ for any illegal
 > activity on his BBS, so he can reasonably be expected to keep an eye on
 > e-mail for anything that will put his ass in a sling.

Ok, this is really getting bizarre.  Why is it so hard to accept that
the ECPA---federal law of the land---applies to BBS operators in the
United States?  It may be a pain in the butt, and it may be an insult
to the noble souls who operate FIDOnet nodes out of the goodness of
their hearts, but that's Life In The Big City.

Perhaps some of the confusion stems from ignorance on my (and,
perhaps, other Internet weenies') part about the topology and
operation of FIDOnet.  As I understand it, ECPA applies if private
third party communications are routed through some FIDOnet agent.
Does this ever happen?

--
Mike McNally

Thread