From: frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 04:18:10 PDT
To: die@pig.jjm.com
Subject: Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail?
Message-ID: <199408121115.AA19438@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:06 PM 8/11/94 -0400, die@pig.jjm.com wrote:

>	But is it not true that the state can simply decide that
>anonymous remailers are a nuisance and a tool of criminals and pass laws
>making remailer operators liable or outlawing remailers entirely ?
>Considering the things that have been outlawed for flimsy reasons in the
>US recently (eg assault weapons, some kinds of scanners) I find it nieve
>to presume that anonymous remailers will remain legal. 

They have yet to outlaw accomodation addresses, voice mail systems,
answering services, pay phones, the new phone parlors, the new phone cards
(buy one from Sprint inside a Hallmark Card at your local Hallmark store), etc.

It is very hard to outlaw something that everyone has or can easily do --
ie. switch voice, data, or physical mail.  It is currently easier to send
communications than it has ever been.  Mere legislation is unlikely to
reverse this trend.

DCF

"So how do you outlaw accomodation addresses, remailers, voice-mail systems,
and private phone switches in *other* countries."