From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 15:33:39 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer Musings
Message-ID: <199404192233.QAA05155@bruno.cs.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


  Ed Carp sez :
  I understand your objections, but think about it this way: nothing in the 
  world says that you have to put a return address on the envelope.  
  Nothing in the world says that you have to present any form of ID in 
  order to drop a letter into a postal box.  Sure, the postal inspectors 
  have to "cooperate", but if you drop a letter with no return address into 
  a box, how could they trace it back to you?  Are people going to say to 
  the US postal folks, "hey, it's *your* fault that they didn't put a 
  return address on their envelope!"  I think not.

Yes, but that's not what anonymous remailers *do*.  Anonymous remailers
accept mail that comes in an envelope *with a return address* and
repackage it in a different envelope without a return address.  So,
yes, in a way, it *is* the analogical Post Office's fault that the
letter arrived without a return address.
  
  Similarly, I think that anonymous remailers, like the post office, ma 
  bell, etc., are common carriers.  You can't have it both ways - either 
  you are a common carrier and exercise no editorial control over what goes 
  through your remailer, or you are a publisher, and are held to a certain 
  degree of legal responsibility.

But if one is a common carrier, one is required to assist.  The whole
remailer paradigm is designed to prevent such assistance.  Therefore,
by running a remailer, you are stating that you are *not* willing to
assist the appropriate authorities, i.e. that you are not a common
carrier.

Or so a lawyer could claim.

	- kitten