From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 93 19:33:58 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: pseudospoofing, copyrights, and ECPA
Message-ID: <9311150332.AA20559@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Some losers are still assaulting me with claims that I failed to
respect His Royal Eminence's privacy by revealing his mailbomb to the
list, saying I was not polite or courteous. Please, hypocrites, go
away. Where does this bizarre philosophy originate? Where do you guys
get your `ethics', anyway? At least have the decency to codify them,
sign your names to them, and stick them on an FTP site if you are going
to spout this bizarre depravity.

Next: Mr. Zions, while one of the `protect the mailbombers privacy'
advocates, brought up some interesting points.

Does the ECPA (the law regulating communications privacy) or the
copyright laws apply to material that was written under a
*pseudonymous* identity? I would consider this a grey area. A court
test would be extremely fascinating. What if work was redistributed if
printed under imaginary identities? the whole aspect of both of the
laws involves *ownership* and *identity*.

If ECPA or copyright laws are interpreted to protect pseudonymous
identities, I propose they be amended and revised to afford no
protection. (Legitimate variations like pseudonymity and anonymity
should be protected in any case.)

One man's opinion. Feel free to stone me some more. Have you figured
out who my personal friends are yet? Have you found any nifty blackmail
on me? I can't wait for the next sordid perversion.