From: jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 15:57:31 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer Musings
Message-ID: <9404192257.AA09181@ralph.sybgate.sybase.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At  4:26 PM 04/19/94 -0600, juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu wrote:

>X-Authentication-Warning: bruno.cs.colorado.edu: Host localhost didn't use
>HELO protocol

Just thought I'd let you know about this heading, in
case you are debugging anything...

>Subject: Re: Remailer Musings 
>Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 16:26:24 MDT
>From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu

>On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that
>one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent
>this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens.  I
>suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting
>up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the
>requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for
>content.
>
>        - kitten

I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't
have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor
of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at
least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A.,
I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous
identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a
possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in
favor of privacy.

jamie
--
"Sure, people mistake me for straight, but when I do get 
someone in bed,that's when being a femme *really* pays
off."                        -Bryna Bank, on Butch/Femme
jamie lawrence                         jamiel@sybase.com