From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 19:36:27 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Mr. Remailer Operator Responds
Message-ID: <199401230334.UAA09711@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Yes, we have been thinking about this sort of thing (protecting against 
>sabotage/abuse/etc). Unfortunately, we haven't come up with any brilliant 
>ideas. I'm attaching a post of only a few days ago that addresses the 
>future of the cpunks remailers. I think it answers a lot of your points.

It is interesting, thank you. I really drool over anything by the Big Macs.

>You still didn't answer my point about other modes. Is the postman
>responsible when a threatening letter arrives in your mailbox? No. Is AT&T
>responsible when a bomb threat is 'anonymously' phoned in? No. If the
>phone company did not exist, perhaps terrorists would have to drop 
>threats in person. Does this mean that the phone company should be 
>outlawed, because it allows abuse that would otherwise not exist?

I will answer your questions. YES. The postmaster and the mail office
and AT&T are RESPONSIBLE for PROVIDING ALL INFORMATION THAT EXISTS when
some illegal communication has been detected. That is, if someone has
been sending violent death threats, these communications services are
RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. Sometimes no such information
exists because of the *inherent infrastructure*. E.g. with mail, it is
possible to send an anonymous letter. E.g. with phones, it is possible
to make anonymous telephone calls.

Instances of my claims are common. The post office may be contacted by
law enforcement officials attempting to track the origination of mail.
The telephone company may be subpoenaed to provide information on calls.

>No, because the functionality of the phone system is such that its 
>plusses are greater than the abuses it makes possible. Such is the case 
>with the remailer system. 

You completely neglect the subject of *design*. Whoever *designs* these
systems *chooses* whether traceability is inherent to the design. And a
sense of morality and ethics is central to this decision. A
communication system is not simply something that Exists and must be
Tolerated. A system is something that is *designed* to meet *criteria*.
And sometimes the criteria is, how do we prevent *illegal* uses?

Mr. Remailer Operator, YOU CHOOSE. are there ILLEGAL USES OF THE
REMAILERS, like HARASSMENT, BOXXIAN DEATH THREATS, LIBEL? or are there
NONE? Tell me what world I live in. It is so confusing for me when you
take contradictory positions.

Cypherpunks, a year ago, and for many months, you essentially said to
me: there is nothing illegal in ASCII text alone. But you have
screeched and shrieked at me and my postmaster and anyone who will
listen to you that anything *I* write is a violent death threat,
harassment, a libelous post that is ILLEGAL and that I should be CENSORED.

 one person told my postmaster that it was ok for me to post as long as
what I said was TRUE.  What if I say, cyberanarchists are slime? Is
that true? Is that Satire? Are the Cypherpunks the new Truth Police.
Oh, what ridiculously funny hypocrites you all are.

imagine that a certain string of letters is illegal! That it should
cause the author to be *censored*! *even* if he used a remailer! What a
shocking concept!

I am deliberately evading the question of whether libel, death threats,
etc. *exist*, that is, *illegal* postings. Our legal system certainly
seems to think so-- death threats are illegal in the postal mail.
Surprise! How many of you knew that? And recall that there are *limits*
on free speech-- you cannot advocate violence, or attempt to instigate
a riot legally, for example. Could someone be so kind as to post the law?

I think cyberspace will change some of these boundaries in a
significant way. But as long as You, Cypherpunks, say that Libel and
Death Threats and Illegal ASCII Text Exists and should be Banned, I
think I will believe you, because you do have some experiences in the
area, and you seem to have started to grasp the consequences of your
decisions, and even the idea that your *decisions* have *consequences*.