cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1993-10-03 - Re: PGP in FIDO

Header Data

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
To: mimir@u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Message Hash: e9744d4bd95c4063307594e473b0063d03fc1aee724c2d74c01248313feefc66
Message ID: <199310032349.AA06425@eff.org>
Reply To: <Pine.3.05z.9310030102.A11917-a100000@carson.u.washington.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-03 23:49:34 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 16:49:34 PDT

Raw message

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 16:49:34 PDT
To: mimir@u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: PGP in FIDO
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05z.9310030102.A11917-a100000@carson.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <199310032349.AA06425@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Al Billings writes:

>  Hasn't happened yet and the ECPA was passed in what? 1986? I really doubt
> if a BBS sysop is going to get nailed over someone's view of e-mail on
> their system.

There's a new consciousness of ECPA thanks in part to the efforts of EFF
and to Steve Jackson's successful ECPA case.

But, Al, the issue is less whether a particular sysop is going to be
prosecuted under ECPA than it is whether that sysop's conduct is *both*
legal and ethical.

Even if a sysop's policies fit within ECPA exceptions, it's dishonest to
justify such policies in terms of risks that don't exist. There is no
documented risk that a sysop will be at greater legal liability if he or
she allows encrypted mail.


--Mike

Thread